Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Program

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared Pursuant to 4321 et seq, 40 CFR parts
 

1500‐1508, 49 USC § 303, 64 FR
 

28545, and 78 FR 2713
 

by the
 

U. S. Department of Transportation
 

Federal Railroad Administration
 

and

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

and

Illinois Department of Transportation

This is a draft document that requires further environmental documentation for FRA and is subject to public

comment through November 15, 2016. A Final Environmental Assessment will be forthcoming following the public

comment period. Wisconsin DOT and Illinois DOT, in partnership with Amtrak, are proposing to increase passenger

rail service between Chicago, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin on the existing Hiawatha Service and construction

infrastructure improvementsto support the increase in frequencies. The Federal Railroad Administration is the lead

federal agency for the project. The 86‐mile route would primarily use CP and Metra rights‐of‐way from Chicago to

Milwaukee. The increased passenger rail service would provide a total of ten (10) round trips between Chicago and

Milwaukee per day, providing an alternative travel mode that avoids and minimizes additional environmental

impact. Intermediate stops would be provided at the following existing Amtrak stations: Glenview, IL, Sturtevant,

WI, and Milwaukee Airport Rail Station, WI. Maximum operating speed in the corridor would be 79 MPH. As

commuter rail and intercity passenger rail services and freight rail service already exist in the corridor, significant

impacts are not anticipated.

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Ms. Andréa E. Martin Mr. Arun Rao

Federal Railroad Administration Passenger Rail Manager

U.S. Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 701

Washington, DC 20590 Madison, WI 53707

Tel: (202) 493‐6201
   

       

   

   

                       

     

       

       

       

       

     

       

     

     

       

       

     

     

     

     

             

     

     

     

     

       

   

     

     

     

   

       

   

   

     

       

     

     

   

     

           

     

   

     

           

     

     

Abbreviations and Acronyms
 

The following list of acronyms may be commonly used throughout this document:
 

AIS Agricultural Impact Statement

Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APE Area of Potential Effect

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ASM Alternative Safety Measures

AST Above Ground Storage Tank

BTU British Thermal Unit

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CP Canadian Pacific Railway

CTC Centralized Train Control

CTH County Trunk Highway

CWT Constant Warning Time

DB or dB(A) Decibel or A‐weighted Decibel

DM Deep Marsh Wetlands

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

DOE Determination of Eligibility

DOM Days on Market

DPW Department of Public Works

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERW Exceptional Resource Water

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HSGT High Speed Ground Transportation

HSR High Speed Passenger Rail

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

km Kilometers

kph Kilometers Per Hour

LAWCA Federal Land and Water Conservation Act

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

M Meadow Wetlands

M(D) Degraded Meadow Wetlands

Metra Commuter Rail operator in northeastern Illinois

MMSD Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MP Milepost

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment i

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

       

   

   

     

   

           

       

       

         

     

     

       

         

             

     

     

     

   

     

     

       

     

       

       

             

     

     

       

     

     

             

           

           

       

     

     

           

     

         

     

     

     

       

Abbreviations and Acronyms

MPH Miles Per Hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

MWRRS Midwest Regional Rail System

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OCR Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Railroads

OLI Operation Lifesaver, Inc.

ppm Parts Per Million

PTC Positive Train Control

R/W Right‐of‐Way or rights‐of‐way

rms Root Mean Square

RPE Riparian Emergent Wetlands

RPE(D) Degraded Riparian Emergent Wetlands

RPF Riparian Wooded Wetlands

RPF(D) Degraded Riparian Wooded Wetlands

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SHS State Historical Society of Illinois or Wisconsin

SM Shallow Marsh Wetlands

SS Shrub Swamp Wetlands

SS(D) Degraded Shrub Swamp Wetlands

SSM Supplementary Safety Measures

STH State Trunk Highway

TEA‐21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

UP or UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

UST Underground Storage Tank

UW University of Wisconsin

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WEPA Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act

WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

WS Wooded Swamp Wetlands

WS(D) Degraded Wooded Swamp Wetlands

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

ii
   

       

   

   

         

   

   

         

   

   

           

       

       

             

               

         

         

               

                 

             

         

           

             

         

   

       

   

       

         

         

         

       

   

Table of Contents

Table	of	Contents	

1 Purpose and Need......................................................................................................................... 1‐1
 

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1‐1
 

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1‐3
 

1.2.1 Planning Efforts......................................................................................................... 1‐3
 

1.2.2 Improvements........................................................................................................... 1‐3
 

1.2.3 Operations................................................................................................................. 1‐4
 

1.3 Program Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1‐5
 

1.4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1‐5
 

1.5 Need....................................................................................................................................1‐5
 

1.5.1 Hiawatha Service Capacity Issues.............................................................................. 1‐6
 

1.5.2 Limited Passenger Train Schedule Options............................................................... 1‐9
 

1.5.3 Highway Congestion................................................................................................ 1‐10
 

1.5.4 Service Reliability .................................................................................................... 1‐11
 

1.5.5 Provide Mobility and Transportation Choice ..........................................................1‐12
 

1.6 Midwest, Statewide, and Regional Planning Context.......................................................1‐14
 

1.6.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.............................................................................. 1‐14
 

1.6.2 Statewide Planning Context.................................................................................... 1‐14
 

1.6.3 Regional Planning Context ...................................................................................... 1‐16
 

1.7 Decisions to be Made........................................................................................................ 1‐17
 

2 Definition of Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 2‐1
 

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2‐1
 

2.2 Alternatives Analysis........................................................................................................... 2‐3
 

2.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 2‐3
 

2.2.2 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................ 2‐3
 

2.3 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2‐14
 

2.3.1 No‐Build Alternative................................................................................................ 2‐14
 

2.3.2 Build Alternative...................................................................................................... 2‐14
 

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...........................................................3‐1
 

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3‐1
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

iii
   

       

   

   

                 

       

       

   

       

       

               

       

       

   

       

       

   

       

       

           

         

         

       

       

          

       

       

       

       

       

             

       

       

         

       

Table of Contents

3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisition ....................................................................... 3‐1
 

3.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 3‐2
 

3.2.2 Potential Impacts....................................................................................................... 3‐2
 

3.3 Socioeconomics................................................................................................................... 3‐3
 

3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 3‐3
 

3.3.2 Potential Impacts....................................................................................................... 3‐5
 

3.4 Title VI and Environmental Justice...................................................................................... 3‐6
 

3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 3‐7
 

3.4.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐15
 

3.5 Agriculture......................................................................................................................... 3‐17
 

3.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐17
 

3.5.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐17
 

3.6 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 3‐19
 

3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐20
 

3.6.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐25
 

3.7 Noise and Vibration........................................................................................................... 3‐33
 

3.7.1 Noise Assessment.................................................................................................... 3‐33
 

3.7.2 Vibration Assessment.............................................................................................. 3‐36
 

3.7.3 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐36
 

3.7.4 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐38
 

3.8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3‐44
 

3.8.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐47
 

3.8.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐49
 

3.9 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................... 3‐52
 

3.9.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐53
 

3.9.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐53
 

3.10 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................... 3‐55
 

3.10.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐56
 

3.10.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐57
 

3.11 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 3‐58
 

3.11.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐58
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

iv
   

       

   

   

       

               

       

       

               

       

       

         

       

       

   

       

       

       

       

       

           

       

       

           

       

       

               

       

             

       

       

           

               

             

       

Table of Contents

3.11.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐59
 

3.12 Critical Habitat and Endangered Species..........................................................................3‐60
 

3.12.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐61
 

3.12.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐67
 

3.13 Water Resources and Aquatic Habitats ............................................................................ 3‐93
 

3.13.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 3‐93
 

3.13.2 Potential Impacts..................................................................................................... 3‐97
 

3.14 Water Quality.................................................................................................................. 3‐102
 

3.14.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐103
 

3.14.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐107
 

3.15 Floodplains...................................................................................................................... 3‐108
 

3.15.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐108
 

3.15.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐109
 

3.16 Wetlands......................................................................................................................... 3‐120
 

3.16.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐120
 

3.16.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐121
 

3.17 Section 4(f) Properties .................................................................................................... 3‐129
 

3.17.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐130
 

3.17.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐142
 

3.18 Section 6(f) Properties .................................................................................................... 3‐142
 

3.18.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐143
 

3.18.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐143
 

3.19 Energy Use and Climate Change .....................................................................................3‐143
 

3.19.1 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐143
 

3.20 Visual and Aesthetic Quality ........................................................................................... 3‐146
 

3.20.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................... 3‐146
 

3.20.2 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐146
 

3.21 Other Construction Impacts............................................................................................ 3‐147
 

3.21.1 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds....................................................................3‐147
 

3.22 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................3‐148
 

3.22.1 Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 3‐149
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

v
   

       

   

   

         

         

   

         

             

           

         

         

       

                 

             

           

4

Table of Contents

3.23 Environmental Commitments and Mitigation ................................................................3‐154
 

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement.............................................................................. 4‐1
 

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4‐1
 

4.2 Project Team ....................................................................................................................... 4‐1
 

4.3 Railroad Stakeholder Working Group ................................................................................. 4‐1
 

4.4 Agency and Tribal Coordination.......................................................................................... 4‐2
 

4.5 Local Agency Coordination.................................................................................................. 4‐8
 

4.6 Other Project Coordination................................................................................................. 4‐9
 

4.7 Public Involvement............................................................................................................ 4‐11
 

4.7.1 State Requirements for Public Involvement Meetings...........................................4‐11
 

4.7.2 Informing and Notifying the Public .........................................................................4‐12
 

4.7.3 Opportunity for Public Comment............................................................................ 4‐14
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

vi
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 		

                         

                               

                      

                                

                          

                           

                          

                     

                        

                             

                              

             

                               

                                

                                 

                                 

                             

                           

                               

             

                       

           

                           

     

             

                   

                     

                       

   

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Chicago to Milwaukee intercity passenger rail corridor is a federally‐designated high‐speed rail

corridor and is one of several branches in the hub‐and‐spoke passenger rail system that terminates in

Chicago, IL. Amtrak’s state‐supported Hiawatha Service operates 7 round trips per day Monday through

Saturday and 6 round trips on Sunday between Chicago and Milwaukee. Figure 1‐1 depicts the Amtrak

Hiawatha Service route. The Proposed Action of the Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Program

is to enhance the Hiawatha Service through operational improvements or increased frequencies to meet

existing and future passenger rail demand. The Wisconsin Department Transportation (WisDOT) and the

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in partnership with Amtrak, are studying the Hiawatha

Service in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating

administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation, serves as the lead federal agency for the

Program. The FRA has primary responsibility for railroad programs at the federal level, including extensive

railroad safety and highway‐railroad grade crossing safety responsibilities.

This EA will provide the public with a description of the potential environmental impacts of the

alternatives developed to meet the Program purpose and need. The EA serves as the primary document

to facilitate the review of the proposed Program by federal, state, and local agencies and the public.

The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United

States Code 4321 et seq.), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545,

1999), the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (Administrative Code Trans 400), and the Illinois Division

of Public and Intermodal Transportation, Railroads Manual. This EA does not follow a tiered NEPA

approach; it evaluates corridor‐wide and project‐specific environmental impacts.

Several terms describing the Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Program are used throughout

this document and are defined below:

 Program – the Proposed Action to enhance the Hiawatha Service to meet existing and future

passenger rail demand

 Program Study Area – the Chicago‐Milwaukee region

 Corridor – the physical rail that connects Chicago and Milwaukee

 Project – relating to the specific proposed service and investment alternatives

 Project Study Area – the physical study area of a specific project

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐1
   

   

       

   

   

   

           

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

Figure 1‐1

Existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service Route between Chicago and Milwaukee

Rondout

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐2
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                       

                                   

                             

                             

                              

                             

                              

                         

                            

                           

                               

                                  

                               

                 

   

                                                            

                 

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Planning Efforts

The Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor is a federally‐designated high speed rail corridor

and is part of an overall vision for an improved and expanded intercity passenger rail system in the

Midwest. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) was established by nine states across the

Midwest, including Wisconsin and Illinois, to advance a series of service concepts to a regional

transportation plan known as the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS). The purpose of the proposed

MWRRS is to “meet current and future regional travel needs through significant improvements to the

level and quality of passenger rail service.”1 The 2004 MWRRI Business Plan evaluated service concepts,

infrastructure improvements, and capital and operating costs required to implement the MWRRS for all

corridors within the system. The long‐term vision of the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor proposed 17 round

trips per day operating at 110 MPH. However, the Business Plan acknowledged that incrementally

building the MWRRS improvements was the most prudent path forward given the lack of large amounts

of funding available. The Program would implement a first step in the overall vision of the corridor.

1.2.2 Improvements

In recent years WisDOT and IDOT have sponsored or supported a number of improvements to the

Hiawatha Service. The major improvements are shown in Figure 1‐2.

1 Executive Summary of the MWRRI Business Plan, 2004

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐3
   

   

       

   

   

   

                             

     

                             

     

                           

                       

                           

         

                           

                                 

                     

           

                       

                   

                               

                      

   

                           

                               

                             

       

                     

                           

   

                         

               

                       

           

   

                             

                              

                                  

       

                            

                           

                             

                              

                               

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

Figure 1‐2

Major Hiawatha Service Improvements

Year Major Hiawatha Service Improvement

1995 WisDOT and IDOT funded an increase in Hiawatha Service frequency from four to six daily round‐trips

(five on Sundays)

2002 WisDOT and IDOT funded an increase in Hiawatha Service frequency from six to seven daily round‐trips

(six on Sundays)

2005

WisDOT opened a new station, Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (MARS), at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell

International Airport. The additional Hiawatha Service stop serves the south Milwaukee metro region.

MARS also facilitates train/air connections via a dedicated airport shuttle operating between the new

station and the airport terminal.

2006 The Village of Sturtevant opened a new station to replace its previous facility.

2007

WisDOT and IDOT funded the addition of a fifth coach car to each Hiawatha Service train set to

accommodate growing ridership. Hiawatha Service train capacity increased from approximately 277 seats

to about 347 seats per train.

2007 WisDOT completed the renovation of downtown Milwaukee’s Amtrak station. The new Milwaukee

Intermodal Station (MIS) serves both Amtrak trains and intercity buses.

2009

WisDOT and IDOT funded the addition of a sixth coach car to each Hiawatha Service train to

accommodate growing ridership. Hiawatha Service train capacity increased to approximately 416 seats

per train.

2009 WisDOT secured a federal grant to improve Hiawatha Service on‐time performance and ride quality by

replacing the last segment of old, jointed rail in the corridor with new continuous welded rail.

2012 Using federal funding secured in 2010, WisDOT is extending the MARS platform to accommodate growing

use of the station.

2012

Using federal funding secured in 2010, WisDOT is enhancing Hiawatha Service on‐time performance

through track and signal improvements (including new crossovers near Truesdell, WI) in Kenosha and

Racine counties.

2012 Using federal funding secured in 2010, IDOT is enhancing Hiawatha Service on‐time performance through

the replacement of two bridge decks near Wadsworth, IL

2014 Amtrak, with funding support from WisDOT and IDOT, implemented complementary on‐board 4G Amtrak

Connect Wi‐Fi service in February 2014

Source: WisDOT

Additionally, WisDOT and IDOT are procuring two PRIIA 305 diesel locomotives for the Hiawatha Service

as part of the Midwest Next Generation Equipment Program. The new Next Generation locomotives will

replace the old Amtrak‐owned P42s that are currently in use. The locomotives are anticipated to be put

into service in 2017.

1.2.3 Operations

WisDOT and IDOT have jointly contracted with Amtrak to operate the Hiawatha Service since 1989. The

intercity passenger rail service currently operates between Union Station in Chicago, IL and Milwaukee

Intermodal Station (MIS) in Milwaukee, WI with intermediate stops in Glenview, IL, Sturtevant, WI, and

Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport. With a typical capacity of 416 seats per train and 7

round trips per day (Monday through Saturday) and 6 round trips on Sunday, the Hiawatha Service offers

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐4
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                          

                                    

                       

                                

       

                     

                       

                        

                             

                        

                            

                           

                           

              

	 	 	

                          

                         

                                

                         

		

             

              

                             

                     

                     

                 

                           

                         

                 

                  

                           

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

approximately 2,912 seats Monday through Saturday and 2,496 on Sunday in each direction to travelers

in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor. Hiawatha Service trains operate with a maximum speed of 79 miles

per hour (MPH) and make the 86‐mile trip between Chicago and Milwaukee in about 1 hour 29 minutes.

Passengers using the Hiawatha Service include those making occasional trips using standard single‐ride

tickets and those making frequent trips (e.g., for commuting to work) using ten‐ride or monthly passes.

Hiawatha Service seats are unreserved.

Amtrak also currently operatesitslong‐distance Empire Builderservice in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor.

The Empire Builder operates between Chicago, IL, Milwaukee, WI, Minneapolis‐St. Paul, MN and Seattle,

WA/Portland, OR. In the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor, the Empire Builder makes an intermediate stop in

Glenview, IL. The Empire Builder operates once per day in each direction. The train operates with a

maximum speed of 79 MPH. Because the Empire Builder caters to long‐distance travelers, north‐bound

trains within Illinois and Wisconsin stop in Glenview and Milwaukee only to receive passengers.

Southbound trains within Illinois and Wisconsin stop in Milwaukee and Glenview only to discharge

passengers. Amtrak operates the Empire Builder as a component of its National Network—no states

contract with Amtrak to provide the service.

1.3 Program Study Area

The 86‐mile rail corridor connects the major metropolitan regions of Chicago and Milwaukee. Hiawatha

Service operates on Metra (Chicago commuter rail)‐owned track between Chicago and Rondout, IL (MP

32.3) and on Canadian Pacific (CP)‐owned track from Rondout to Milwaukee, WI. A majority of the

proposed intercity passenger rail improvements would be constructed within existing rail right‐of‐way.

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of the Project is to:

 Address existing and future passenger rail demand;

 Expand modal options to provide an alternative to traffic delay, reliability issues, and long travel

times related to existing and future highway congestion in the corridor;

 Strengthen transportation connections to other transportation modes such as air, intercity bus,

local transit, bicycle facilities, and ride sharing options; and

 Enhance and improve the reliability of a successful, existing intercity passenger rail service and

utilize the significant investments made in the Hiawatha Service over the past twenty years.

1.5 Need

The project need is derived from the following elements:

 Near‐capacity and over‐capacity conditions aboard peak Hiawatha Service trains;
 

 Limited passenger train schedule options to meet existing and future passenger demand and to
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐5
   

   

       

   

   

     

                             

                       

                           

   

                         

   

                           

	 	 	 	

                                   

                             

                        

                         

                          

              

   

                                                            

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

optimize existing multimodal connections;

 Existing and future highway congestion resulting in increased travel times for autos and buses in

the corridor may result in additional demand for alternative modes of travel;

 Inadequate service reliability due to conflicts with freight and other passenger traffic in the

corridor; and

 Demand to enhance mobility and transportation choice as identified in state and regional

planning documents.

The following sections describe the facility deficiencies that will be addressed by the Project.

1.5.1 Hiawatha Service Capacity Issues

The total population of the five counties in the corridor (Cook and Lake counties in Illinois and Kenosha,

Racine, and Milwaukee counties in Wisconsin) has grown from 6,880,000 in 1990 to 7,210,000 in 2010—

an increase of 4.8%.2 Similarly, Hiawatha Service ridership in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor has nearly

doubled between 2001 and 2013, growing by an average of 5.9% per year.

Figure 1‐3 shows Hiawatha Service ridership from calendar years 2001 through 2014. Ridership measures

the number of passengers using the Hiawatha Service.

2 U.S. Census

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐6
   

   

       

   

   

   

   

           

   

   

     

       

           

                               

                                     

                                          

                           

                           

                           

                                 

                                

                                      

                               

                 

                             

                                     

                          

                              

   

                                                            

                                       

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

Figure 1‐3

Hiawatha Service Annual Ridership

Calendar Year (CY) Hiawatha Service Annual Ridership

2001 423,500

2002 397,500

2003 433,200

2004 470,200

2005 544,400

2006 588,000

2007 617,800

2008 766,200

2009 741,800

2010 792,800

2011 823,400

2012 832,500

2013 819,125 (778,469)*

2014 804,861*

2001‐13 Change 395,625

2001‐13 % Change 93%

2001‐13 Avg. Annual % Change 5.9%

Source: WisDOT analysis of Amtrak data

*Starting in 2014, Amtrak changed their methodology for calculating ridership, which resulted in reduced Hiawatha Service

ridership in 2014. Amtrak provided 2013 ridership for the Hiawatha Service using the new methodology. When comparing the

2013 to 2014 ridership computed using the new methodology, it can be seen that ridership actually increased from 2013 to 2014.

The percentage change in ridership is provided for 2001 through 2013 using the previous methodology.

The overall growth in Hiawatha Service ridership between 2001 and 2014 has resulted in increasing

occurrences of near‐capacity (when seats are 90 percent or more filled) and over‐capacity conditions

(when the number of on‐board riders exceeds the number of seats), especially on trains 330, 332, 337

and 339, which operate during peak travel time periods. Peak travel time periods are generally considered

to be between 6 and 9 a.m. and 4 and 7 p.m. Near‐capacity and over‐capacity conditions are most likely

to occur between Glenview and Sturtevant, which Amtrak ridership data shows is the route segment that

typically has the largest number of on‐board passengers.

From 2008 to 20143

, Hiawatha Service trainstypically operated with six coach cars and approximately 416

seats (the number of seats can vary slightly as the train sets can be configured with different coach cars

depending on availability and maintenance schedules). Figure 1‐4 presents the number of instances of

near‐capacity and over‐capacity conditions aboard Trains 330, 332, 337, and 339 between 2008 and 2014.

3 Year begins in January and ends in December, whereas Amtrak’s fiscal year begins in July and ends the following

June

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐7
   

   

       

   

   

                 

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

     

   

     

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

                               

             

                               

       

               

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

Figure 1‐4
 

Hiawatha Service On‐Board Ridership between Glenview and Sturtevant by Train (2008‐2014)
 

Milwaukee

 Chicago

Train #

Departure

Time

Calendar

Year

Number of

Trains with

Ridership > 374

Percent of Trains

Operated with

Ridership > 374

Number of

Trains with

Ridership > 416

Percent of Trains

Operated with

Ridership > 416

330 6:15 AM 2008 1 0.3% 0 0%

2009 0 0% 0 0%

2010 1 0.3% 0 0%

2011 1 0.3% 0 0%

2012 2 0.6% 0 0%

2013 4 1.3% 0 0%

2014* 12 3.8% 4 1.3%

332 8:05 AM 2008 20 5.5% 10 2.7%

2009 25 6.9% 14 3.8%

2010 29 8.0% 14 3.8%

2011 34 9.3% 14 3.8%

2012 49 13.3% 19 5.2%

2013 36 9.8% 13 3.6%

2014* 8 2.2% 4 1.1%

Chicago 

Milwaukee

Train #

Departure

Time

Calendar

Year

Number of

Trains with

Ridership > 374

Percent of Trains

Operated with

Ridership > 374

Number of

Trains with

Ridership > 416

Percent of Trains

Operated with

Ridership > 416

337 3:15 PM 2008 11 3.0% 3 0.8%

2009 4 1.1% 1 0.3%

2010 17 4.7% 7 1.9%

2011 26 7.2% 3 0.8%

2012 22 6.1% 6 1.6%

2013 17 4.7% 6 1.6%

2014* 7 1.9% 4 1.1%

339 5:08 PM 2008 33 9.0% 14 3.8%

2009 29 7.9% 12 3.3%

2010 47 12.9% 19 5.2%

2011 54 14.8% 24 6.6%

2012 63 17.5% 35 9.8%

2013 52 14.4% 23 6.4%

2014* 50 13.7% 18 4.9%

Data Source: Amtrak

Note: Hiawatha Service trains typically operated in 2008‐2014 with 416 seats. Hiawatha Service seats were more than 90 percent

occupied when on‐board ridership exceeded 374 riders.

*Starting in 2014, Amtrak changed their methodology for calculating ridership, which resulted in reduced Hiawatha Service

ridership in 2014.

**Average number of standees is not provided for 2014.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐8
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                            

                        

                                   

                              

                                  

                             

                                

                                     

                             

                                         

                                   

                                   

                                     

                                 

                         

                     

       

                           

                         

                               

          

	 	 	 	 		

                             

                         

                         

                         

                               

                        

                           

       

                            

                                                            

                               

        

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

In 2013, with the introduction of E‐ticketing, Amtrak changed its methodology to more accurately count

and report ridership (i.e., trips). Previously, Amtrak could only estimate the trips generated from

passengers who used non‐standard tickets (e.g., unlimited monthly passes and 10‐ride tickets). E‐

ticketing has enabled Amtrak to count the actual trips taken by riders using such passes. The new

methodology for counting and reporting ridership also impacted the tracking of instances of overcapacity.

This is evident when comparing instances of overcapacity for Trains 330 and 332. The new method of

tracking passengers essentially split ridership between Trains 330 and 332, whereas prior to 2014, a

majority of the ridership was assigned to Train 332. Although instances of overcapacity decreased in 2014

for Trains 330, 332, 337, and 339, there is still a high number of overcapacity trains in the corridor.

In 2013, Hiawatha Service Train 332 hosted more than 374 riders between Glenview and Sturtevant 9.8%

of the days it operated and more than 416 riders 3.6% of the days it operated. In 2013, Train 337 hosted

more than 374 riders between Glenview and Sturtevant 4.7% of the days it operated and more than 416

riders 1.6% of the days it operated. Finally, in 2013, Train 339 hosted more than 374 riders between

Glenview and Sturtevant 14.4% of the days it operated and more than 416 riders 6.4% of the days it

operated. In 2013, Trains 332, 337, and 339 averaged between 40 and 52 standees with on‐board ridership

between Glenview and Sturtevant greater than 416. Analysis of Hiawatha Service ridership data indicates

that near‐capacity and over‐capacity conditions between Glenview and Sturtevant were infrequent on

other Hiawatha Service trains in 2008‐2013.

Hiawatha Service ridership is expected to continue growing in the future, as evidenced by the nearly‐

consistent increase in ridership since 2001. Asridership grows, near‐capacity and over‐capacity conditions

(especially on trains 330, 332, 337 and 339) are expected to occur more frequently if no improvements

are made to the service.

1.5.2 Limited Passenger Train Schedule Options

1.5.2.1 Existing and Future Passenger Demand 

An on‐board survey of existing Hiawatha Service passengers was conducted by the WisDOT and the

University Transportation Center for Mobility at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in 2011 to

examine the impacts that the multimodal Hiawatha Service has on mobility. The resulting report, Intercity

Passenger Rail: Implications for Urban, Regional, and National Mobility4

, found that, on average,

passengers “strongly agreed” that they would be encouraged to ride the Hiawatha Service more often if

additional daily departures and arrivals were provided. Specifically, passengers agreed that additional

early and late evening departures from Chicago and an additional morning departure from Milwaukee

were attractive schedule additions.

Amtrak’s current schedule provides 5:08 p.m. and 8:05 p.m. departures from Chicago Union Station. The

4 Intercity Passenger Rail: Implications for Urban, Regional, and National Mobility. B. Sperry and C. Morgan.

University Transportation Center for Mobility. December 2011.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐9
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                             

                        

                                   

                          

                              

                             

                       

                             

                           

                             

       

                             

                               

                   

                              

                 

                             

                     

                                 

                         

                             

                              

                             

                           

                           

                                   

                             

           

                                                            

         

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

survey responses indicate that passengers desire a departure time between the existing evening

departures to accommodate later working schedules and a departure after 8:05 p.m. to allow for

participation in evening activities in Chicago. Amtrak’s morning departures from Milwaukee Intermodal

Station are scheduled at 6:15 a.m. and 8:05 a.m. arriving in Chicago at 7:57 a.m. and 9:34 a.m.,

respectively. Again, the survey responses suggest that passengers desire additional frequencies in the

peak hours. As will be discussed further in Section 1.5.4, over capacity and near‐capacity conditions are

experienced on the 8:05 a.m. departure from Milwaukee and the 5:08 p.m. departure from Chicago,

further supporting the argument that additional frequencies are needed to accommodate passenger

demand.

1.5.2.2 Multimodal Connections 

Train schedule options are critical to providing flexibility for passengers traveling within the corridor, as

well as flexibility of transferring to modes that service destinations outside the corridor. The Chicago‐

Milwaukee corridor offers multimodal connections to intercity and local busservice, airservice, and other

intercity passenger rail routes:

 Intercity bus connections can be made at Chicago Union Station for destinations to the south,

east, and west, and at Milwaukee Intermodal Station for destinations to the north and northwest.

 Hiawatha Service passengers have direct access to Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International

Airport from the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station. The airport has non‐stop flights to 39 domestic

cities and one‐stop connections to 160+ cities worldwide.5

 Chicago Union Station is the Midwest hub for intercity passenger rail and provides connections to

twelve Amtrak routes that serve all parts of the U.S.

If more schedule options are provided to passengers, travel within the corridor would be more robust and

connections to modes that travel outside the corridor would be more accessible.

1.5.3 Highway Congestion

Major highways connecting Chicago and Milwaukee include Interstate 94 (I‐94), U.S. Highway 41, and U.S.

Highway 45. A number ofstate and county highways also provide north‐south connectivity in the corridor.

I‐94 serves as the main intercity route for automobiles and trucks traveling between Chicago and

Milwaukee. The route parallels Amtrak’s existing Chicago‐Milwaukee route for most of the travel corridor.

I‐94 currently is undergoing reconstruction and expansion between Chicago and Milwaukee. Some of this

work, including the addition of a fourth lane in each direction along segments of I‐94, already has been

completed in Illinois. Reconstruction and the addition of a fourth lane in each direction—the I‐94 North‐

South Freeway Project—is ongoing in Wisconsin.

5 www.mitchellairport.com, accessed October 1, 2015

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐10
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                             

                                  

                               

                                 

                                   

                             

                             

        

                               

                 

                                   

                             

                               

                                 

                             

                             

                           

                                   

                                       

                           

     

	 	

                           

                                    

                                      

                         

                             

                              

                                    

           

                                                            

                       

  

                             

        

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

According to the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I‐94 reconstruction and

expansion project in Wisconsin, traffic volumes on I‐94 are projected to continue to increase through

2035.6 Traffic volumes in Kenosha County are expected to increase by 41% (an increase from 78,000 to

110,000 vehicles per day in 2035 near the Kenosha County‐Racine County border) to 49% (an increase

from 85,000 to 127,000 vehicles per day in 2035 in central Kenosha County). Traffic volumes in Racine

County are expected to increase by 38% (an increase from 88,000 vehicles per day to 121,000 vehicles per

day near the Racine County‐Milwaukee County border). Traffic volumes are projected to increase 10% (an

increase from 156,000 to 171,000 vehicles per day north of the General Mitchell International Airport

Spur) in Milwaukee County.

The projected increases in traffic volumes assumed a significant increase in public transit in the region,

including implementation of the proposed Kenosha‐Racine‐Milwaukee commuter rail project—which no

longer is an active project. As a result, projected increases in I‐94 traffic volumes could be higher if

assumed transit projects do not get implemented. In addition, the projected traffic volume growth rates

do not include increased traffic attracted to the higher‐capacity freeway. The I‐94 EIS indicated that the

induced demand is forecast to add an additional 2% to 12% to the expected future traffic volumes.

The I‐94 North‐South Freeway Project will reduce congestion by increasing the capacity of the freeway;

however, highway congestion will be a concern in the future. Public transportation options will continue

to be needed as travel alternatives. The 2011 on‐board survey of Amtrak Hiawatha Service passengers

indicated that nearly 70% of the passengers would have travelled by auto if the train were not available

for their trip. An additional 14% of the passengers indicated they would not have made the trip if the train

were not available. Avoiding highway congestion was a primary reason survey respondents provided for

taking the train.7

1.5.4 Service Reliability

On‐Time Performance (OTP) is a measurement that Amtrak and other agencies use to monitor train

performance. It is calculated by taking the total number of trains arriving “on‐time” at the end‐point of a

route divided by the total number of trains operated on the route. A train is considered “on‐time” if it

arrives at the final destination within 10 minutes of its scheduled arrival time.

Hiawatha Service has a history of very good on‐time performance; however, the OTP of the Hiawatha

Service gradually decreased between 2004 and early 2016. OTP has shown an improvement in the first

half of 2016, with values in the low‐ to mid‐90% range. Figure 1‐5 shows the average annual OTP for

August 2004 through August 2015.

6 Interstate 94 North‐South Freeway Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wisconsin Department of
 

Transportation. March 2008.
 7 Intercity Passenger Rail: Implications for Urban, Regional, and National Mobility. B. Sperry and C. Morgan.
 

University Transportation Center for Mobility. December 2011.
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐11
   

   

       

   

   

   

       

           

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

         

  

                             

                                  

                                 

       

               

       

               

                                     

                            

                           

                               

                         

                       

                          

                         

   

	 	 	 	 	

                     

                             

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

Figure 1‐5

Hiawatha Service Average Annual On‐Time Performance

Time Period Hiawatha Service Average Annual OTP

August 2004‐July 2005 91.9%

August 2005‐July 2006 89.5%

August 2006‐July 2007 88.9%

August 2007‐July 2008 88.1%

August 2008‐July 2009 87.8%

August 2009‐July 2010 88.7%

August 2010‐July 2011 88.3%

August 2011‐July 2012 90.8%

August 2012‐July 2013 89.2%

August 2013‐July 2014 86.8%

August 2014‐July 2015 86.5%

Decrease in OTP from 2004‐2015 6%

Source: Amtrak

In addition to tracking the on‐time performance, Amtrak also records the primary cause(s) of delay

experienced by a train. Amtrak provided the primary causes of delays for the period of October 2004

through September 2015. During that time period, the top three causes of delay for Hiawatha Service

trains were as follows:

 Commuter train interference (21.3% of all delay minutes)

 Freight train interference (9.9%)

 Communications & Signaling work due to defect (9.8%)

Approximately 40% of the causes of delaysto Amtrak trains over the past eleven years are related to other

trains and infrastructure issues, indicating that there are significant reliability issues in the corridor. In

addition to Amtrak’s delays, CP and Metra, Chicago’s commuter rail service, have both observed

significant delays and reduced reliability in the corridor due to disparate service types operating on shared

track and inadequate infrastructure to accommodate modern day train lengths and speeds. Adding

further Amtrak Hiawatha Service without improving infrastructure and adding capacity would exacerbate

existing problems because additional trains would be inserted into an already‐congested railroad corridor.

Infrastructure, signaling, and operational improvements must be made to decrease delays and increase

service reliability.

1.5.5 Provide Mobility and Transportation Choice

According to Wisconsin’s Connections 2030, providing mobility and transportation choice “creates the

foundation of an efficient, balanced and safe transportation system – which is critical to Wisconsin’s

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐12
   

   

       

   

   

                            

                                   

         

                     

                       

                         

                          

                 

   

               

         

                 

                           

                 

                       

                           

                                     

                                

                                

                                        

                       

                     

                           

                                

                           

                                                            

                   

     

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

economic vitality and quality of life”.8 Mobility and transportation choice are especially important for

persons with disabilities, those who cannot or choose not to drive, and those who live in areastraditionally

underserved by public transportation.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) echoes the desire to promote

mobility in the region with “a balanced, integrated, well‐connected transportation system that provides

choices among transportation modes”. SEWRPC identifies six objectives related to mobility in their

Preliminary Draft of the Vision 2050 planning effort.9 The six objectives are as follows:

 A balanced, integrated, well‐connected transportation system that provides choices among

transportation modes.

 Reliable, efficient, and universal access to employment centers, educational opportunities,

services, and other important places.

 Well‐maintained transportation infrastructure.

 An acceptable level of service on the transportation system.

 Fast, frequent, and reliable public transit services that maximize the people and jobs served.

 Convenient, efficient, and reliable movement of goods and people.

The purpose and need of the project supports SEWRPC’s objectives for mobility.

Connections 2030 states that between the years 2000 and 2030, Wisconsin’s population of people 65

years and older is predicted to increase by 90.2 percent, compared to a 20 percent increase in the total

population. The document also cites that the state’s demand for workers will continue to outpace supply

as the “baby boom” generation retires. This is especially important to Wisconsin because of the dramatic

increase in population of people over 65 years old by 2030. A way to offset the unmet demand is by

attracting young, educated workers to the state. According to American Public Transportation

Association’s “Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset”, communities that attract

Millennials(those born between 1982 and 2003) have multimodal transportation choicesthat are reliable,

connect the user with their communities, and fully leverage technology. It is clear from the planning

documents of Wisconsin and SEWRPC that providing multimodality and choice in transportation is a

priority.

8 Connections 2030 Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Plan, Chapter 8, October 2009 9 http://vision2050sewis.org/SEWRPCFiles/Vision2050/VISION2050‐DraftPlanObjectives.pdf, accessed September

23, 2015

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐13
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

                                

           

	 	 	

                   

                         

                        

                         

                              

      

                       

         

             

           

                                 

   

                     

   

                       

   

                         

                 

                         

   

                       

         

   

       

                       

             

                   

                         

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1.6 Midwest, Statewide, and Regional Planning Context

1.6.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

The MWRRI was described in Section 1.2.1. Increased frequencies proposed as part of this Program are

consistent with MWRRS plans for the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor.

1.6.2 Statewide Planning Context

1.6.2.1 Wisconsin 

Increased Hiawatha Service frequencies are consistent with Wisconsin’s long‐range, multimodal state

transportation plan, Connections 2030. In 2014, WisDOT completed and adopted its state rail plan,

Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030, which builds off of Connections 2030. Both Connections 2030 and the Wisconsin

Rail Plan 2030 recommend increasing train frequencies and reducing train travel times in the Chicago‐

Milwaukee corridor. The plans also recommend improving passenger rail service in the region as part of

the proposed MWRRS.

Connections 2030 notes that improving intercity passenger rail service in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor

would provide the following benefits:

	 Creation of more trip choices for passengers;

	 Reduction in travel time for travelers;

	 Improvement to an alternative travel mode used by those who cannot or choose not to travel by

auto; and

 Improved transportation synergies with other travel modes (e.g., intercity bus, commercial air

service, etc.).

Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030 identified the following additional benefits of improving the Hiawatha Service:

	 Mobility Benefits

o	 Provides an alternative that is capable of operating in inclement weather when roads;

are closed and airline flights are delayed or cancelled;

o	 Offers a safe travel option that can be cost‐ and time‐competitive with driving and

flying; and

o	 Provides mobility and economic development to smaller communities with little or no

access to any other public transportation.
 

 Economic benefits
 

o	 Reduces businesses’ transportation costs;

o	 Allows business travelers to work productively while en route to their destination;

o	 Facilitates an increase in tourism travel; and

o	 Improves Wisconsin’s economic competitiveness and supports the growth of high‐tech

and service sector jobs by helping to attract new businesses and skilled young

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐14
   

   

       

   

   

       

               

           

                           

           

                       

                 

       

                       

                 

                         

         

       

         

                          

                     

                   

                             

                        

           

   

                         

   

       

                 

             

               

                 

           

                     

                   

     

                       

       

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

professionals
 

 Environmental and livability benefits
 

o	 Promotes livable communities by expanding transportation options and encouraging

economic development in communities, especially near stations;

o	 Provides an opportunity to change land use and travel patterns that help improve air

and water quality and community aesthetics;

o	 Provides a transportation option that is environmentally friendly and has fewer carbon

dioxide emissions per passenger‐mile than private auto or airlines;

o	 Improves energy‐efficiency of personal travel;

o	 Contributes to efforts to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions

through diversion of some auto and air traffic; and

o	 Helps reduce negative impacts to individuals and the economy of disruptions in energy

supply or fuel price increases.
 

 Safety and security benefits
 

o	 Provides a safer travel option.

1.6.2.2 Illinois 

In 2012 IDOT completed its Illinois State Transportation Plan (2012 IL Transportation Plan). This plan

provides the strategic direction for realizing the “Transforming Transportation for Tomorrow” vision,

which represents IDOT’s commitment to a safe, sustainable, and integrated multi‐modal transportation

system. This plan presents the policies and goals guiding IDOT’s investment decisions for Illinois’

transportation system over the next 20 years. The plan’s recommended policies included:

	 Develop a sustainable Illinois Transportation System;

	 Improve transportation safely;

	 Provide a transportation system that offers a high degree of mobility, accessibility, reliability,

and options;

	 Provide efficient freight movement;

	 Incorporate human capital into department planning, programs, and policies;

	 Preserve and manage the existing transportation system;

	 Address congestion and maximize efficiency and effectiveness through transportation

operations;

	 Follow a comprehensive transportation planning process and promote coordination among

public and private sector transportation systems;

	 Promote stable funding for the public component of the transportation system;

	 Target transportation investments to support business and employment growth and enhance

the Illinois economy;

 Ensure a compatible interface of the transportation system with environmental, social, energy,

and land use; and

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐15
   

   

       

   

   

                     

           

                             

                       

   

	 	 	

                         

                          

                          

                               

                            

                       

                           

                             

                     

                           

                            

                      

                               

                           

                                 

                             

                 

                             

               

       

             

                 

                                                            

               

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

	 Provide a secure transportation infrastructure in conjunction with the Office of Homeland

Security – Illinois Terrorism Task Force.

While the plan does not make specific recommendations to improve intercity passenger rail service in

Illinois, the 2012 Illinois State Transportation Plan references IDOT’s continued commitment to intercity

passenger rail service.

1.6.3 Regional Planning Context

1.6.3.1 Southeast Wisconsin 

Improvements to the Hiawatha Service are also consistent with regional plans, including SEWRPCs Vision

2050. SEWRPC’s Vision 2050 Plan recommends improving intercity passenger rail services and expanding

the destinations served. The Plan recommends two new intercity rail lines “one connecting Chicago to

Minneapolis and St. Paul via Milwaukee and Madison, and another connecting Chicago to Green Bay via

Milwaukee and the Fox Valley.” The Plan also recommends construction of the Muskego Yard bypass

(proposed Muskego Yard Signalization Project) to allow freight trains traveling through downtown

Milwaukee to bypass the station. The project would “benefit the station’s ability to accommodate

additional commuter rail and intercity passenger rail service, and it would improve safety and reduce

delays to both freight and passenger trains traveling through Milwaukee.”10

1.6.3.2 Chicago Metropolitan Area 

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) developed and now guides the implementation of

GO TO 2040, metropolitan Chicago's comprehensive regional plan. The GO TO 2040 plan places a high

priority on maintaining and modernizing the existing transportation system, including transit.

Strengthening the transit system by bringing transit infrastructure to a ‘state of good repair’ is expected

to promote transit usage by increasing service reliability, efficient utilization of existing infrastructure and

the comfort and convenience of the transit experience. A strong transit system also is expected to

improve mobility by allowing travelers to avoid congested roadways, and improving travel times both for

people who use transit and for those who drive.

Increasing passenger rail service between Chicago and Milwaukee supports the goals of the GO TO 2040

Plan because implementation of the Hiawatha Project would:

	 Focus transportation investment on existing infrastructure;

	 Increase the availability of passenger services; and

	 Provide an alternative to using heavily congested freeway corridors.

10 SEWRPC Vision 2050 Revised Draft, July 2016

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐16
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 	 	

                                 

                      

                               

                                

                           

                                    

                               

           

                                                            

       

       

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1.7 Decisions to be Made

The NEPA process is “intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of

environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.”11

WisDOT, IDOT, and FRA must comply with NEPA and evaluate the proposed project alternatives to inform

the decision makers and to determine if impacts on the environment would be significant. In addition,

“NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens

before decisions are made and before actions are taken.”12 If it is determined through the EA that no

significant impacts would result from the proposed action (the project), then a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) is issued by FRA.

11 40 CFR 1500.1 12 40 CFR 1500.1

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

1‐17
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                         

                                  

                         

   

                       

                               

                          

                             

                               

                             

                                   

                               

                               

                                 

                               

                         

                       

                                 

                             

                             

                        

                             

               

                           

                 

                                                            

        

                                     

       

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

2 Definition of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describesthe alternative actions considered for implementing the Proposed Action described

in Chapter 1. Alternatives were identified and evaluated to assess their ability to meet the purpose and

need of the project, meet engineering design criteria, and avoid or minimize adverse environmental

impacts.

NEPA requires that agencies shall “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,

and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discussthe reasonsfor their having

been eliminated”.13 In following NEPA requirements, this document identifies and evaluates a range of

alternatives for reasonableness, and eliminates alternativesfrom further analysis that are not found to be

reasonable.

In intercity passenger rail corridor planning, the range of alternatives to be considered consists of a

hierarchical array of Route, Service, Investment, and Design Alternatives, which is developed with the goal

of examining a complete range of alternative means of fulfilling the purpose and need of the project.

Within a particular corridor and with a given purpose and need established for a proposed intercity

passenger rail service, there may be multiple physical routes (e.g., parallel existing rail lines that traverse

the corridor) over which the service may be operated. Similarly, any one of these available “Route

Alternatives” may be capable of supporting intercity passenger rail service with a range of basic service

characteristics such as frequency levels, travel times, stopping patterns, train consist14, and fare

structures. For a particular combination of possible service characteristics (with each combination

referred to as a “Service Alternative”), there may likewise be multiple options for the package of physical

investments needed to support the operation of the service with those service characteristics. For each

of the improvement projects that make up a particular “Investment Alternative” package, there may be

multiple potential Design Alternatives for actually implementing the given project. Design Alternatives

are the physical improvement alternatives that can be constructed for a particular project that achieve

the same operational benefit as the overall project.

Figure 2‐1 illustrates the conceptual hierarchy of alternatives for intercity passenger rail corridor planning

that will be evaluated as part of the NEPA process.

13 40 CFR 1502.14(a).
 14 The coupled vehicles making up a train (for example, a passenger train consist typically contains coaches, a cab
 

car, and a locomotive)
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐1

Quandel Consultants, LLC
Chapter 2

Definition of AlternativesFigure 2‐1Conceptual Hierarchy of Alternatives for Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Planning

Purpose and Need

Route

Alternative A

Service

Alternative A

Service

Alternative B

Investment

Alternative A

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Investment

Alternative B

Project 2

Design

Alternative A

Design

Alternative B

Project 3 Pr

Route

Alternative B

Route

Alternative C

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                           

                               

                                    

                                 

                                 

                         

                          

   

   

             

     

              

               

               

               

   

       

               

             

               

               

         

         

   

   

          

         

   

   

     

     

          

                             

                           

                      

                               

                                   

         

                     

                              

                     

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

2.2 Alternatives Analysis

2.2.1 Methodology

In the alternatives analysis for the Program, Route, Service, Investment, and Design Alternatives were

examined in sequence to identify the reasonable build alternatives (in addition to the No‐Build) to be

included in the EA. At each level of the alternatives hierarchy, a preliminary range of alternatives wasfirst

identified and then screened to eliminate alternatives that would not fulfill the purpose and need of the

program, or which were determined not to be a reasonable means of meeting the purpose and need

based on consideration of specific criteria related to engineering and operational requirements, safety,

potential environmental impacts, and cost. The factors considered in this screening are summarized in

Figure 2‐2.

Figure 2‐2

Criteria for Preliminary Range of Alternatives Screening

Purpose and Need Reasonableness









Address existing and future passenger rail demand

Expand modal options to provide an alternative to

traffic delay, reliability issues, and long travel times

related to existing and future highway congestion in

the corridor

Strengthen transportation connections to other

transportation modes such as air, intercity bus, local

transit, bicycle facilities, and ride sharing options

Enhance and improve the reliability of a successful,

existing intercity passenger rail service and utilize the

significant investments made in the Hiawatha Service

over the past twenty years











Meets safety requirements

Construction feasibility

Ability to meet railroad operational

requirements

Potential impacts to environmental resources

o 4(f)/historic properties

o Wetlands

o Critical habitat/endangered species

o Noise and vibration

o Environmental Justice/ community

cohesion

Order of magnitude capital costs

To adequately assess the range of alternatives against these criteria, the Route, Service, Investment, and

Design Alternatives under consideration were subjected to varying degrees of analysis related to service

planning, conceptual engineering, and environmental impacts. In general, this assessment required that

the analysis of alternatives at the more detailed levels of the hierarchy (e.g. Investment and Design

Alternatives) be more complex and examine a greater level of detail than at the higher levels of the

hierarchy (e.g. Route and Service Alternatives).

2.2.2 Alternatives Considered

The sub‐sections below identify the range of Route, Service, Investment, and Design Alternatives

considered and summarize the results of the alternatives analysis conducted for each set of alternatives.

A more detailed analysis of alternatives is located in Appendix A.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐3

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                         

                             

            

   

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

2.2.2.1 Route Alternatives 

Three Route Alternatives were identified and evaluated for each alternative’s ability to meet the purpose

and need and reasonableness criteria. Figure 2‐3 illustrates the three Route Alternatives: Route

Alternative A (Existing Amtrak Route), Route Alternative B (Union Pacific (UP) Kenosha Route), and Route

Alternative C (UP Milwaukee Subdivision Route).

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐4

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

   

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

Figure 2‐3

Route Alternatives

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐5

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                         

                      

                                

                             

                 

                           

                               

             

                       

                       

                             

                               

                             

                   

                             

                           

                   

                               

                       

                               

                                       

                             

                                  

                           

                                

                                 

                         

                                

                                 

                               

                                 

                             

       

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

Route Alternative B and Route Alternative C were eliminated from further consideration because each

proposes moving the well‐established Hiawatha Service to a new rail corridor, thereby reducing modal

options by eliminating important intermodal connections at existing mid‐corridor stations. In addition,

Route Alternative C would require the construction of a new rail connection through a golf course. A

detailed Route Alternatives analysis is included in Appendix A. The No‐Build Alternative and Build

Alternative (Route Alternative A) were retained for further study.

2.2.2.2 Service Alternatives 

Following the completion of the Route Alternatives analysis, five Service Alternativesfor Route Alternative

A were identified and evaluated for each alternative’s ability to meet the purpose and need and

reasonableness criteria. The five Service Alternatives include:

 Service Alternative A (No‐Build Alternative) ‐ Passenger service operating at a maximum of 79

MPH throughout the corridor at a frequency of 7 round‐trips per day

 Service Alternative B – Passenger service operating at maximum of 79 MPH from Chicago Union

Station to Rondout (Lake Forest, IL), at 90 MPH from Rondout to the Milwaukee Airport Rail

Station (Milwaukee, WI), and at a maximum of 79 MPH from the airport station to Milwaukee

Intermodal Station at a frequency of 10 round‐trips per day

 Service Alternative C – Passenger service operating at a maximum of 79 MPH throughout the

corridor and increasing the frequency of the Hiawatha Service from existing service levels of 7

round trips per day to 10 round trips per day

 Service Alternative D – Adding an additional coach car to each existing Hiawatha Service train set

 Service Alternative E – Changing Hiawatha Service ticketing procedures from unreserved to

reserved

Although Service Alternative B would provide a travel time reduction of 2 minutes between the Glenview,

IL station and the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station, it would not meet the purpose and need as it would not

address existing and future passenger rail demand because an increase in speed would not alleviate

demand for the service. It also would not be reasonable because it would require the expenditure of

capital costs to construct additional track improvements and would pose significant increases in annual

operating and maintenance costs. Service Alternative D would not meet the purpose and need asit would

not improve reliability or expand modal options, and it would not be reasonable because it would require

the expenditure of capital funds to purchase additional equipment and the expenditure of additional

annual funds to operate and maintain the equipment. Service Alternative E would not meet the purpose

and need as it would not address existing and future demand, would restrict ridership growth, would not

strengthen connectionsto other modes, and would not enhance and improve the reliability of the existing

service. As such, Service Alternative C was the sole Service Alternative (in addition to the No‐Build

Alternative, Service Alternative A) to be carried forward. The detailed Service Alternatives analysis is

included in Appendix A.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐6

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                           

                         

                         

                                

                   

                                    

                                 

               

                           

         

                 

         

             

                             

   

           

                     

               

                               

                            

               

                 

                               

                             

                                  

                             

                           

                              

           

           

           

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

2.2.2.3 Investment Alternatives 

2.2.2.3.1 Infrastructure Investments 

As a starting point for identifying the range of Investment Alternatives needed to support the increase in

passenger rail frequencies reflected in Service Alternative C (while not unreasonably impairing freight and

commuter rail operations in the corridor), the alternatives analysis examined an earlier operations

analysis that was prepared using Berkeley Simulation Software’s Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) modeling

package. The RTC modeling effort had been undertaken by WisDOT between 2007 and 2010 to identify

the infrastructure investments needed to support various Hiawatha Service speed and frequency

scenarios. With input from CP, Metra, and FRA, a final model and results were completed in 2010 that

identified the following investment projects as being necessary to support 10 round trips per day on the

corridor:

 Install universal crossover near Dewes Street (Glenview, IL);

 Install double track connection with the UP Milwaukee Subdivision at Tower A‐20 (Glenview, IL);

 Upgrade Deerfield crossover (Deerfield, IL);

 Install universal crossover in Lake Forest (Lake Forest, IL);

 Upgrade Wadsworth crossovers (Wadsworth, IL);

 Install universal crossover at Truesdell (Kenosha, WI);

 Replace 19 miles of jointed rail with continuous welded rail (CWR) between Wadsworth, IL and

Milwaukee, WI;

 Upgrade crossovers at Sturtevant (Sturtevant, WI);

 Construct second platform at Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (Milwaukee, WI); and

 Upgrade signals at Milwaukee Intermodal Station (Milwaukee, WI).

Between 2010 and 2012, when the preparation of this EA began, WisDOT and CP funded the construction

of two of the investment projects identified by the RTC modeling. These projects included:

 Installation of universal crossover at Truesdell (Kenosha, WI)

 Installation of CWR between Wadsworth, IL and Milwaukee, WI

As part of the preparation of this EA, an Operations Analysis Working Group was established, consisting

of representatives of WisDOT, IDOT, FRA, Amtrak, Metra, CP, and UP, to assist in the Investment

Alternatives analysis effort. Meetings of this Working Group were held in January 2013 and April 2013 to

review the investments identified in the 2007‐2010 operations analysis, and to determine if there were

other projects that merited consideration as a means to accommodate the proposed increase in

frequency reflected in Service Alternative C. Working Group meetings were held on the following dates:

 Meeting #1 – February 19, 2013

 Meeting #2 – April 5, 2013

 Meeting #3 – April 29, 2013

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐7

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                         

                           

                            

                                 

                                    

                           

                             

                               

                                    

                           

                            

                                  

                                

                             

                      

                         

                               

                             

                   

                                

                             

             

                               

       

                           

                              

                    

                                

                         

                              

                         

                       

       

                             

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

The purpose of Meeting #1 was to review work completed for the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor as part of

previous modeling efforts and within the current Program; discuss guidelines for identifying investment

projects necessary to accommodate the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies; and to identify the

appropriate personnel from each Working Group organization to participate in future meetings. At the

conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed upon that Working Group Meeting #2 would focus solely on

projects needed for 10 round trips per day. Meeting #3 would focus on fine‐tuning the results of Meeting

#2.

During Meeting #2, each railroad presented its current constraints, future constraints with future freight

volumes, and future constraints with future freight volumes and 3 additional Hiawatha Service round trips

per day. The system constraints and bottlenecks identified by the railroads were compared to the inputs

to the RTC model and to the modeling results produced by WisDOT. In general, the RTC model identified

locations of bottlenecks in the corridor that matched bottlenecks and constraints identified by the

Working Group. However,several areas of constraint ‐ at Milwaukee Airport Rail Station and at the Metra

Fox Lake Subdivision – were not modeled. CP noted thatseveral assumptions used in the model, including

a maximum freight train length of 7,000 feet and freight traffic volumes, were out of date. Additionally,

CP indicated that the turnout upgrades at Deerfield, Wadsworth, and Sturtevant should be removed from

the Investment Alternative due to additional maintenance requirements of higher speed turnouts. Areas

of constraint and preliminary infrastructure to mitigate the constraints were discussed as follows:

	 Metra – Reduced maintenance windows as a result of Trains 331 (Amtrak) and 281 (CP), and

(Amtrak) 358 on weekends. Mitigated by adding control points at Lake Forest and Glenview.

Avoids need for night work which communities and unions oppose.

	 Metra – Amtrak 341 can be delayed by Metra 2147. Mitigated by construction of second main

[track?] from Rondout to St. Mary’s Road with Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) and new higher

speed turnout will allow parallel moves.

	 CP – Second platform at Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (MARS) to keep trains on their normal

track and eliminate crossover movements.

	 CP – Run‐through track through Muskego Yard area of Milwaukee to avoid Milwaukee Station

and wear and tear on the Menomonee River swing bridge. Also allows eastbound freights to

stage in the yard rather than on the main lines.

	 CP – Need to find solution to mitigate CP Train #282 from being overtaken three times. Possible

solutions include constructing a universal crossover at the turnout to the Wisconsin Electric

Power Company (WEPCO). All agreed that a 10,000 foot connecting track at A‐20 would be

helpful.

At Meeting #3, Metra confirmed that the following strategies would mitigate its constraints:

 Construct universal crossovers in Lake Forest and Glenview to allow for daytime maintenance

windows and operational flexibility.

 Construct second main track from Rondout to St. Mary’s Road on Metra Fox Lake Subdivision

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐8

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                       

                   

                   

                         

                               

                         

                   

                             

       

                             

                                     

                                 

             

                                 

                               

                     

                                  

                             

                                  

                           

           

                             

                                     

                                

             

                                 

                                         

                               

                            

                             

                                  

                             

                         

                       

   

                           

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

with CTC and new higher speed turnout to allow for parallel moves.

CP confirmed that the following investment projects were still required:

	 Construct second platform at MARS to reduce delays from crossover movements.

	 Provide two run‐through tracks within Muskego Yard by upgrading existing yard tracks and

installing signals at east end of the yard to allow trains an additional route around Milwaukee

(which would create capacity within Milwaukee Intermodal Station) and allow freight trains to

stage in the Yard rather than on the main lines.

	 Upgrade signals at Milwaukee Intermodal Station and install CTC to allow for more efficient train

movements through the station.

	 Construct an extension of the CP connecting track at A‐20 along the UP Milwaukee Subdivision

from Shermer Road to West Lake Avenue to allow CP trainsto hold off the main lines while waiting

for approval to enter UP territory (which would create capacity on the CP main line and reduce

delays for commuter and intercity passenger trains.

Given the differences identified by CP between existing train volumes and train lengths and the inputs to

the RTC model, CP performed updated operations simulations using the RTC model both to validate the

Working Group’s recommendations and reflect then‐current (2013) freight traffic levels, updated

projections of future freight traffic levels, and updated train lengths. CP produced an updated RTC model of

the corridor in August 2013 that included the investment projectsidentified during Working Group Meeting

#3. Based on the updated RTC model, CP identified two additional projects and additional scope on one

project needed to accommodate the additional Hiawatha Service frequencies and mitigate its effect on

other rail operations in the corridor:

	 Rondout Siding Extension – New project that would extend an existing freight siding from Rondout

(the railroad control point south of Illinois Route 176) to Illinois Route 60 for a total siding length of

13,000 feet. Project would allow for operational flexibility for all trains by providing a third track in

a very busy segment of the corridor.

	 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Siding Extension at A‐20 – At A‐20, in addition to providing a siding

adjacent to the UP that CP can use to stage trains for entrance to the UP or exit from the UP,

construct a second connection to the UP from the CP mainline south of the Northbrook Metra

Station. The new connection would allow for simultaneous moves between the CP and UP.

	 Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout – New project that would increase speeds for certain

freight trains between A‐20 (Northbrook, IL) and Rondout (Lake Forest, IL) from 40 MPH to 50 MPH.

This project would reduce delays for CP trains and would decrease the speed differential between

freight trains and passenger trains, making operations safer. Signal system modifications to

accommodate increased train speeds are the only physical improvements required to implement

the project.

The railroad stakeholders and project sponsors initially coalesced around a final Investment Alternative to

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐9

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                                        

                                 

                                

                                  

                             

                             

     

         

            

     

       

     

         

           

   

     

                         

             

                                   

                              

                                

                                 

                              

             

                             

                                 

                             

                   

                             

                            

                             

                

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

support an increase in Hiawatha Service to 10 round trips per day at 79 MPH. CP later indicated that freight

operations in the Milwaukee area are evolving and changing, which may lead to additions or alterations to

the proposed scope of work at Muskego Yard. This EA considers only the infrastructure investmentsinitially

identified and accepted by the project team for Muskego Yard. Any additional or altered scope would be

subject to additional documentation to support NEPA. The project sponsors moved forward with the

Investment Alternative for infrastructure consisting of the following projects as modeled by CP in August

2013:

 Glenview Universal Crossover

 UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

 Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

 Deerfield Holding Track

 Lake Forest Universal Crossover

 Rondout Siding Extension

 Metra Fox Lake Second Track

 Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

 Muskego Yard Signalization

 Milwaukee Station‐Cut‐Off CTC Installation

A description of the operational benefits of the infrastructure investments included in the Investment

Alternative is provided in Section 3.6.5.3.

2.2.2.3.2 Equipment Investments 

Also as part of the Working Group meetings, a 10 round trip schedule was developed to support the

implementation of Service Alternative C, and was approved by the railroad stakeholders. The schedule is

presented in Section 3.6.2.2. In developing the schedule, the number of train sets required to operate

the 10 round trip schedule was analyzed. To implement Service Alternative C, three train sets are

required. The current Hiawatha Service utilizes two sets of equipment; an additional set of equipment

must be procured by the States.

Two equipment scenarios were identified for the Build Alternative: Alternative 1A assumes that a third

PRIIA 305 locomotive could be procured or utilized from the Midwest fleet and an additional set of

Amtrak‐owned cars would be available; Alternative 1B assumes that the States would procure a third

PRIIA 305 locomotive and three sets of PRIIA 305 cars.

In discussions with Amtrak regarding equipment scenarios, Amtrak stated that it would be unlikely that

an additional set of Amtrak‐owned cars would be available for use by the Hiawatha Service. Therefore,

the only reasonable Investment Alternative for equipment consists of the procurement of one PRIIA 305

locomotive and three sets of PRIIA 305 cars.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐10

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                                 

                             

                         

        

         

     

         

                             

                                 

                         

                                     

                                     

                               

                                   

                                   

                         

                             

     

                             

                               

                                    

                               

                               

                               

                             

                                  

                                 

           

                             

                                          

                                     

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

2.2.2.4 Design Alternatives 

Of the projects included in the Investment Alternative identified above, the majority are simple enough

or so limited in scope so as to have only a single reasonable Design Alternative for their implementation;

however, three of the projects included in the Investment Alternative package were identified to have

multiple potential Design Alternatives capable of providing similar operational benefits to the overall

project. These projects include:

 UPRR siding extension at A‐20
 

 Rondout siding extension
 

 Metra Fox Lake second track
 

Design Alternatives for each of these projects were identified and evaluated for each alternative’s ability

to meet the purpose and need and reasonableness criteria. A summary of the analysis of the Design

Alternatives is included below and the detailed analysis is included in Appendix A.

2.2.2.4.1 UPRR Siding Extension at A-20 

The purpose of the UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 project is to allow a 10,000‐foot long freight train to

hold off the CP mainline while waiting to get accessto the UP Milwaukee Subdivision. Much of CP’sfreight

traffic must traverse a portion of UP’s Milwaukee Subdivision to access CP Bensenville Yard in Chicago.

Currently, CP trains must wait on the mainline at Rondout (Lake Forest, IL) until they are given permission

to enter the UP Milwaukee Subdivision at A‐20, a railroad control point 12 miles south of Rondout in

Northbrook, IL, a situation that significantly degrades freight operations on the corridor.

Six Design Alternatives were identified as alternatives that would meet the operational objectives of the

project as follows:

	 A‐20 Alternative 1 – construct 11,000 foot holding track adjacent to the UP Milwaukee Subdivision

on the west side of the existing two mainlines; construct new bridge over Shermer Road adjacent

to the existing Shermer Road bridge. An 11,000 foot track is the longest section of track that can

be constructed on the west side of the UP between Techny Road and West Lake Avenue.

	 A‐20 Alternative 2 – construct 10,000 foot track adjacent to the UP Milwaukee Subdivision on the

east side of the existing two mainlines; construct new bridge over Shermer Road adjacent to the

existing Shermer Road bridge; construct track swings to allow UP mainline operations to occur on

eastern two tracks; CP trains would hold on former UP northern mainline. A 10,000 foot track is

the longest section of track that can be constructed on the west/east side of the UP between

Techny Road and West Lake Avenue.

	 A‐20 Alternative 3 – Construct the same improvements as Alternative 1 plus an additional 10,500

feet of track to the southwest on the westside of the UP. A 10,500 foot track isthe longestsection

of track that can be constructed on the westside of the UP between West Lake Avenue and I‐294.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐11

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                                   

                             

                                   

                                 

                                 

                         

                             

                 

                             

                               

           

                               

                                    

                               

                                        

                           

                           

                                

                                       

                             

                                 

                              

                                 

                                   

                                   

                     

                             

                                 

                                   

                         

                               

                             

                                                            

                   

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

	 A‐20 Alternative 4 – construct 10,000 foot track adjacent to the CP mainline on the west side of

the existing main tracks north to Cherry Lane; permanently close Techny Road and Shermer Road

grade crossings. A 10,000 foot track is the longest section of track that can be constructed on the

west side of the CP between Shermer Road (on the UP) and Cherry Lane (on the CP).

	 A‐20 Alternative 5 – this alternative proposes a freight bypass for CP trains on the UP Milwaukee

Subdivision from the Illinois‐Wisconsin border to A‐20. Requires construction of 30 miles of

second main track and CTC, construction of a greenfield connection between UP and CP in

Pleasant Prairie, WI; special track construction, new grade crossing construction

	 A‐20 Alternative 6 – the Village of Glenview proposed a service alternative consisting of the

current 7 round trip service operating on the existing route and the additional 3 round trips

operating on the UP Milwaukee Subdivision

Alternative 3 was removed from further consideration because it would not meet the purpose and need

as it does not meet operational requirements of the project. It also would not be reasonable because it

would adversely impact the use of a Section 106 historic property (The Grove National Historic Landmark

in Glenview, IL) and it would cost 2.4 times as much as the lowest cost option to construct. Alternative 4

was removed from further consideration because it would not be reasonable as it poses constructability

issues and because it presents significant community access concerns associated with the bifurcation of

the parking lot and the Metra station. Alternative 5 was removed from further consideration because it

does not meet the purpose and need of the project as it is not deemed necessary for 10 round trip

Hiawatha Service. It also would not be reasonable as it presents likely environmental impacts to

communities around the UP Milwaukee Subdivision and it would cost 5.5 times as much as the lowest

cost option to construct. Finally, Alternative 6 was removed from further consideration because it would

not be reasonable as it splits the Hiawatha Service to minimize the impact of the improvements on the

Village of Glenview, but provides no benefit to intermediate stations and would cost 5.5 times as much as

the lowest cost option to construct. A‐20 Design Alternatives 1 and 2 were carried forward. The detailed

analysis of the A‐20 Design Alternatives is included in Appendix A.

2.2.2.4.2 Metra Fox Lake Second Track 

Metra operates 62 weekday commuter trains between Chicago Union Station and Deerfield, IL, with 47

of those trains continuing north onto the Fox Lake Subdivision (toward Metra’s terminus at Fox Lake, IL)

through a railroad control point known as Rondout, located in Lake Forest, IL. Rondout is a complex

interlocking (a configuration of switches and signals interconnected to direct trains along different

routes15) that controls movements on the CP C&M Mainline, movements to and from the Fox Lake

Subdivision, and movements to and from the Canadian National’s Elgin, Joliet & Eastern line, which

15 The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association’s Practical Guide to Railway Engineering,

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐12

Quandel Consultants, LLC

2003
   

   

       

   

   

                       

                                     

                                    

                                     

                                   

                                     

                                  

                                 

           

                               

                               

                                       

                                      

                             

                                 

                           

   

                             

                         

     

                                 

                                       

                                    

                                  

                       

                                 

                              

                              

                                         

                                      

                         

                             

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

intersects the CP C&M Subdivision just east of the Fox Lake Subdivision junction.

Current operations are affected greatly by the fact that the 17 mile Fox Lake Subdivision has a single track

configuration. Because of the inability for Metra trains to meet each other on the Fox Lake Subdivision, if

an eastbound Fox Lake train is delayed on the Fox Lake Subdivision, Metra trains waiting to enter the Fox

Lake Subdivision from the C&M Subdivision must hold on the C&M main tracks to meet the delayed Fox

Lake train, potentially for long periods of time. This in turn creates a traffic conflict on the C&M

Subdivision thatresultsin delaysto CP, Amtrak, and other Metra trains. Additionally, the need to schedule

all commuter trains so that meeting points occur on the C&M mainline south of Rondout severely limits

schedule options for Metra and the Hiawatha Service.

The Metra Fox Lake Second Track project proposes to address these operational limitations by creating a

second track on the Fox Lake Subdivision and through the Rondout control point to allow forsimultaneous

moves by Metra trains to and from the Fox Lake Subdivision, and to allow for Metra trains to meet each

other (whether by schedule or due to delays) on Fox Lake Subdivision rather than on the CP C&M mainline.

Two Design Alternatives were identified as alternativesthat would meet the operational objectives of this

project:

 Metra Fox Lake Alternative 1 – Construct a second track on the Fox Lake Subdivision from Rondout

to just east of St. Mary’s Road; replace signal equipment controlling the interlocking, upgrade

interlocking trackwork

 Metra Fox Lake Alternative 2 ‐ Construct a second track on the Fox Lake Subdivision from Rondout

to 1,500 feet west of St. Mary’s Road; replace signal equipment controlling the interlocking,

upgrade interlocking trackwork

Design Alternative 2 was removed from further analysis because it does not meet the purpose and need

of the project asthe extension of the new second track west of St. Mary’s Road was not deemed necessary

for 10 round trip Hiawatha Service. It also would not be reasonable as it would cost 7.5% more than

Alternative 1. Assuch, only Metra Fox Lake Design Alternative 1 was carried forward. The detailed analysis

of the Metra Fox Lake Design Alternatives is included in Appendix A.

2.2.2.4.3 Rondout Siding Extension 

The Rondout Siding Extension project connects to the south end of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track

project. The purpose of the Rondout siding extension is to provide additional operational flexibility for

freight and passenger trains traveling through the Rondout control point. By constructing a third track at

least 10,000 feet in length, which is the average length of a freight train in this analysis, a train would be

able to hold off the mainline, creating capacity for other trains on the mainline. The siding could also be

used by trains as a main track during maintenance windows on the mainline.

Two design alternatives were identified as alternatives that would meet the operational needs of the

project:

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐13

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                                 

                              

                                 

           

                     

                               

                                

                               

                                

                             

                                 

                         

                                   

                              

                               

       

	 	

                             

                                   

                              

                               

                         

                               

                             

                               

           

                               

                           

                               

                             

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

	 Rondout Siding Extension Alternative 1 – Construct 9,000 feet of track on existing embankment;

install signals, special trackwork, and a control point. The total length of the third track would be

13,000 feet which includes the existing running track near Rondout to be reconstructed. A 13,000

foot third track is the longest section of track that can be constructed between the Metra Fox

Lake Subdivision and Illinois Route 60.

	 Rondout Siding Extension Alternative 2 ‐ Construct 14,000 feet of track on existing embankment

and on an overhead structure; construct a new 130‐foot bridge adjacent to the existing rail bridge

over Illinois Route 60; install signals, special trackwork, and a control point. The total length of

the third track would be 18,000 which includes the existing running track near Rondout to be

reconstructed. On the south end of the extension, the third track would connect to the proposed

Lake Forest universal crossover to be constructed north of Conway Road in Lake Forest.

Design Alternative 2 was removed from further analysis because it would not be reasonable as the noise

and vibration increase due to the project would impact sensitive residential receptors; track construction

for Alternative 2 south of Illinois Route 60 would occur within numerous wetlands; and it would cost $9.2

million (nearly twice) more than Alternative 1. As such, only Rondout Siding Extension Design Alternative

1 was carried forward. The detailed analysis of the Rondout Siding Extension Design Alternatives is

included in Appendix A.

2.3 Description of Alternatives

2.3.1 No‐Build Alternative

The No‐Build Alternative consists of operating the Amtrak Hiawatha Service at existing service levels (7

round trips per day Monday through Saturday and 6 round trips on Sunday) and speeds (maximum of 79

MPH). Maintaining existing service levels does not meet the Program purpose and need because existing

and future passenger rail demand would not be addressed; modal options would not be expanded to

provide an alternative to delays, reliability issues, and travel times; connections to other transportation

options would not be strengthened; and the reliability of the service would not be improved.

The No‐Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the other

alternatives. NEPA requires consideration of no action to serve as a baseline comparison with the

proposed action and other alternatives considered.

2.3.2 Build Alternative

2.3.2.1 Route, Service, and Investment Alternative 

As described in Section 2.2.2, the alternatives analysis resulted in the identification of a Build Alternative

consisting of a single Route Alternative, Service Alternative, and Investment Alternative to be carried

forward into the EA. The Route Alternative corresponds to the existing Amtrak route that uses

Amtrak/Metra/CP‐owned track and the Service Alternative reflects a frequency of 10 round trips per day,

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐14

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                               

                                    

                                  

                                 

                               

   

                         

     

     

     

         

            

     

       

     

         

           

   

     

   

     

         

                                 

                         

                                 

           

                             

                               

                                   

                               

                               

                               

                             

                                                            

                                     

       

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

seven days a week with similar travel times, train consists16, stopping patterns, and fare structures as

would be in place under the No‐Build. The 10 round trip schedule would add two non‐peak period and

four peak period one‐way trips per day (See Section 3.6.5 for the proposed train schedule). The added

trips would address gaps in the existing schedule during peak travel times and are anticipated to reduce

overcrowding seen on Trains 330, 332, 337, and 339 by providing more Hiawatha Service options during

peak periods.

To implement this Service Alternative, a single Investment Alternative package was identified, comprised

of the following:

	 Infrastructure Investment Projects

o	 Glenview Universal Crossover

o	 UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

o	 Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

o	 Deerfield Holding Track

o	 Lake Forest Universal Crossover

o	 Rondout Siding Extension

o	 Metra Fox Lake Second Track

o	 Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

o	 Muskego Yard Signalization

o Milwaukee Station‐Cut‐Off CTC Installation
 

 Equipment Investment Procurement
 

o	 One PRIIA 305 locomotive

o	 Three sets of PRIIA 305 cars

2.3.2.2 Design Alternatives 

As described in Section 2.2.2.4 a single reasonable Design Alternative was carried forward for nine of the

10 improvement projects included in the identified build Investments Alternative package. The one

exception isfor the UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 project, for which the following two Design Alternatives

were carried forward into the EA:

	 A‐20 Alternative 1 – construct 11,000 foot holding track adjacent to the UP Milwaukee Subdivision

on the west side of the existing two mainlines; construct new bridge over Shermer Road adjacent

to the existing Shermer Road bridge. An 11,000 foot track is the longest section of track that can

be constructed on the west side of the UP between Techny Road and West Lake Avenue.

	 A‐20 Alternative 2 – construct 10,000 foot track adjacent to the UP Milwaukee Subdivision on the

east side of the existing two mainlines; construct new bridge over Shermer Road adjacent to the

existing Shermer Road bridge; construct track swings to allow UP mainline operations to occur on

16 The coupled vehicles making up a train (for example, a passenger train consist typically contains coaches, a cab

car, and a locomotive)

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐15

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                                  

                                 

           

                               

                             

                      

Chapter 2

Definition of Alternatives

eastern two tracks; CP trains would hold on former UP northern mainline. A 10,000 foot track is

the longest section of track that can be constructed on the west/east side of the UP between

Techny Road and West Lake Avenue.

The evaluation of the Design Alternatives for impacts to environmental resources is included in Chapter 3

– Environmental Resources Analysis of this EA. The Design Alternatives are only discussed in specific

sections in Chapter 3 where the design results in different impacts.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 2‐16

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                       

                              

                               

                         

                           

                                  

                          

                     

             

         

     

   

   

       

   

         

         

   

     

     

         

       

                           

                    

	 	 	 	 	

                               

         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This section describes the existing social, economic, and environmental resources within the Chicago‐

Milwaukee corridor and the potential impacts of the Build Alternative on the resources. Under the No‐

Build Alternative, daily trips on the Hiawatha Service would not increase from existing levels, and no

infrastructure improvements would be constructed. Under the Build Alternative, daily trips on the

Hiawatha Service would increase to 10 round trips per day and ten infrastructure improvement projects

would be constructed to support the increase in service. The maximum speed would remain at 79 MPH.

To describe the existing conditions and environmental impacts, 19 resource topics are evaluated. These

resources are discussed in individual sections of this chapter and include:

 Land use, zoning, and property acquisition

 Socioeconomics

 Title VI and Environmental Justice

 Agriculture

 Transportation

 Noise and vibration

 Air quality

 Hazardous materials

 Public health and safety

 Cultural resources

 Critical habitat and endangered species

 Water resources and aquatic habitats

 Water quality

 Floodplains

 Wetlands

 Section 4(f) properties

 Section 6(f) properties

 Energy use and climate change

 Visual and aesthetic quality

Additional sections at the end of this chapter address cumulative and indirect impacts and environmental

commitments. Construction impacts are discussed within each environmental resource section.

3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisition

This section describes the land cover in the Program Study Area and discusses land acquisitions proposed

as part of improvement projects.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐1
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                               

                              

                           

                                

                                  

                             

                         

                 

	 	

                                  

           

                                

                               

                           

                             

                          

                               

                           

                              

                                 

                        

                          

                            

                       

     

                                       

                            

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The Build and No‐Build Alternatives would utilize a long‐established rail corridor between Chicago and

Milwaukee. Intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and freight rail traffic operate on portions of the

corridor. Development has occurred within the Program Study Area to take advantage of rail services.

The Study Area begins in the heavily developed urban and suburban industrial, commercial, and

residential areas of Chicago. The Study Area continues through Illinois in a mix of suburban residential,

undeveloped, and rural areas. In Wisconsin, a majority of the Study Area is surrounded by rural areas

with scattered urban areas. The Study Area ends in developed urban industrial, commercial, and

residential areas of Milwaukee. Rural areas within the Study Area are predominantly agricultural. Zoning

designations vary along within the Study Area by community.

3.2.2 Potential Impacts

3.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would require no additional property and would not impact land use or zoning.

Agricultural land would not be impacted.

3.2.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies would not impact existing land use or zoning. Future land

use is dependent upon a number of factors including regional and local markets, plans and zoning

ordinances, and economic development policies of local governments. Land adjacent to the corridor

would likely be able to continue to support current and proposed future land use.

Construction of the infrastructure improvement projects also would not impact land use or zoning.

Property acquisition is proposed to construct two projects require the acquisition of land adjacent to the

railright‐of‐way: Metra Fox Lake Second Track project and Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

project. The other eight projects would be located entirely within the existing rail right‐of‐way.

Construction of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project would require the acquisition of 0.78 acres of

farmland. Documentation of coordination with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) isincluded in Section 3.5.2. Construction of the Milwaukee Airport

Rail Station Second Platform project would require the acquisition of 0.07 acres of farmland. Coordination

with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is documented

in Section 3.5.2.

Zoning for the 0.78 acres of land required for the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project is identified by the

Village of Green Oaks, IL as Limited Industrial.17 Ordinance 2014‐O‐13, 8‐27‐2014 states that railroad

17 http://greenoaks.org/resources/site1/general/Updated%20ZONING_2D%2002252015%203.26.15.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐2
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                                     

                                

                                  

                           

                            

                             

                           

   

                                 

                             

                              

                           

                            

                                 

           

   

                                                            

         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

tracks and railroad operations are permitted in any zoning district.18 Therefore, the improvements

proposed as part of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project are anticipated to be permitted in the Limited

Industrial district. Zoning for the 0.07 acres of land required for the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second

Platform project is Industrial – Light. According to the City of Milwaukee’s Zoning Code of Ordinances, a

light industrial district provides sites that “utilize medium‐sized buildings and do not have extensive

outdoorstorage areas or operations”.19 The existing Milwaukee Airport Rail Station building and platform

are located within the Industrial‐Light district, and it is anticipated that the proposed second platform,

elevator tower, and overhead pedestrian bridge would meet the definition of the Industrial‐Light district

as well.

3.3 Socioeconomics

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The Program Study Area spansfrom Chicago to Milwaukee and traversestwo countiesin Illinois and three

counties in Wisconsin. These counties have a combined 2010 population of approximately 7.2 million.20

Between 1990 and 2010, the overall population in these countiesincreased by 4.7%. Although Milwaukee

County’s population decreased by 1.2% and Cook County’s population only increased by 1.8%, the

combined population of Lake County, Kenosha County, and Racine County increased by almost 30%.

Figure 3‐1 shows the population change in the counties comprising the Program Study Area, the states of

Illinois and Wisconsin, and the U.S.

18 http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=634 19 http://city.milwaukee.gov/PlanningPermits/DCDzoninglink.htm#.V5j2MXlTEic 20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐3
   

   

       

   

   

   

               

  

   

  

   

     

   

   

   

     

                             

     

     

     

     

     

     

                              

                             

                                  

                                  

                                    

                                

         

                           

                                    

                                                            

         

                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐1

Population Changes in the Program Study Area, 1990‐2010

1990

Population21

2000

Population22

2010

Population

Percent Change

1990‐2010

Illinois

Cook County 5,105,067 5,376,741 5,194,675 1.8%

Lake County 516,418 644,356 703,462 36.2%

State of Illinois 11,430,602 12,419,293 12,830,632 12.2%

Wisconsin

Kenosha County 128,181 149,577 166,426 29.8%

Racine County 175,034 188,831 195,408 11.6%

Milwaukee County 959,275 940,164 947,735  ‐1.2%

State of Wisconsin 4,891,769 5,363,675 5,686,986 16.3%

U.S. 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 24.1%

The largest cities within the Program Study Area include the following, with 2010 population shown:

 Chicago, IL (2,695,598)

 Skokie, IL (64,784)

 Glenview, IL (44,692)

 Waukegan, IL (89,099)

 Kenosha, WI (99,218)

 Milwaukee, WI (594,833)

Approximately 16 smaller cities and villages are located within the Program corridor. Between 1990 and

2010, the population of these smaller cities and villages generally increased, with sharp increases between

1990 and 2000 and smaller increases between 2000 and 2010. The greatest increase was seen in cities

within Lake County, IL. As indicated in Figure 3‐1, the overall population of Lake County increased by

36.2% between 1990 and 2010. During this time, the population in the city of Chicago decreased by 3.2%

and population in the city of Milwaukee decreased by 5.3%. The U.S. population increased by 24.1%

between 1990 and 2010.23

Between 2004 and 2014, unemployment in the Program Study Area generally exceeded the national

averages for all counties. Unemployment reached a peak in 2009 in the Study Area and in the country,

21 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 22 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 23 U.S. Census Bureau: Census of Population and Housing, http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐4
   

   

       

   

   

                                      

               

	 	

                       

                     

           

                             

                             

                        

                                

                   

   

                             

                     

                            

                               

               

                             

                       

                             

                                  

                             

                 

                                                            

         

                             

                          

   

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

but rates have been on the decline since then.24 None of the counties in the Study Area are considered

U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration economically distressed areas.25

3.3.2 Potential Impacts

3.3.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative consists of operating the current Hiawatha Service between Chicago and

Milwaukee at the present levels of service. Existing socioeconomic conditions for population,

employment, and transportation options would continue.

3.3.2.2 Build Alternative 

Construction of rail infrastructure in the Program Study Area would create direct impacts including the

creation of jobs related to providing construction materials and equipment, and the creation of jobs

related to actual construction of the rail infrastructure improvements. Increased passenger rail service

also creates additional jobs for operating the service. Freight rail and commuter rail could also benefit

economically from the Build Alternative due to the construction of congestion‐reducing infrastructure

improvements.

The geographic distribution of the economic impact of passenger rail service would depend on the

location of the construction materials and equipment manufacturers, construction labor force, and

operations labor force. The study for the MWRRS estimated that approximately 4,000 construction jobs

and 2,000 operations jobs would be created if the entire Chicago hub network (a 3,000‐mile passenger

rail system) were implemented throughout the Midwest.26

The MWRRS study added that station connectivity and regional mobility would be enhanced, rail safety

and reliability increased, and economic development associated with increased income and property

values realized.27 The MWRRS would allow for more travel options in the Midwest, providing better

connectivity to jobs and other cities in the region. Implementation of the full MWRRS would lead to

substantial travel time savings over driving and would provide a productivity benefit to business travelers

by being able to work while utilizing the MWRRS.

24 Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/#cntyaa
 25 FHWA Supplemental Guidance on the Determination of Economically Distressed Areas Under the Recovery Act,
 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/guidancedistressed.htm
 26 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Executive Report.
 

February 2000.
 27 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook. June
 

2004.
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐5
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 	 	 	

                               

                            

                                     

                               

                              

                           

                   

                                

                          

                         

                         

                                 

                

                         

                       

             

                           

                         

                       

                       

               

                             

       

                               

        

                     

               

                             

         

                           

                       

                                  

                           

  

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.4 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, subsection 2000d: Federally Assisted Programs discusses the

prohibition of exclusionary practices of programsreceiving fundsfrom the Federal government. It assures

that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This Program is being developed in full compliance of Title

VI.

On February 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) on Environmental Justice 12898

(“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income

Populations”). The EO requires all federal agencies to address the impact of their programs with respect

to environmental justice. The goal is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse

human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low‐

income populations. The EO also requires those representatives of any low‐income or minority

populations that could be affected by the project in the community be given the opportunity to be

included in the impact assessment and public involvement process.

USDOT Order 5610.2 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐

Income Populations” providesthe U.S. Department of Transportation’s policy on implementing EO 12898.

USDOT Order 5610.2(a) provides the following definitions:

	 Minority Individual: The U.S. Census Bureau classifies a minority individual as belonging to one of

the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin) and Hispanic or Latino.

	 Minority Populations: Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic

proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (e.g.,

migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed U.S. DOT

program, policy, or activity.

	 Low‐income: A person whose household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services poverty guidelines.

	 Low‐income Population: Any readily identifiable group of low‐income persons who live in

geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons

(e.g., migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed U.S.

DOT program, policy, or activity.

Additionally, USDOT Order 5610.2 defines an adverse effect on EJ populations (i.e., minority and low‐

income populations) asthe totality ofsignificant individual or cumulative human health, or environmental

effect (e.g., the displacement of a household structure or business as a requirement to build a project). A

Disproportionally High or Adverse Effect on Minority and Low‐Income Populations is an adverse effect

that:

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐6
   

   

       

   

   

                     

                         

                               

         

                                 

                             

                     

         

          

               

           

                     

                         

   

             

                 

                         

   

                           

         

                              

                 

                                   

   

                         

                                  

                           

                        

                               

                                

                             

                                   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

 Is predominately born by a minority population and/or a low‐income population, or

 Will be suffered by the minority populations and/or low‐income population and is appreciably

more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the

nonminority population and/or non‐low‐income population.

To meet the requirements of Title VI, EO 12898, and USDOT Order 5610.2, the Proposed Action was

assessed to determine if it would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and

environmental impacts (such as those noted below) on minority or low‐income populations:

 bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death;

 air, noise, water pollution, and soil contamination;

 destruction or disruption of manmade or natural resources;

 destruction or diminution of aesthetic values;

 destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community’s economic vitality;

 destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services;

 vibration;

 adverse employment effects;

 displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations;

 increased traffic congestion; isolation, exclusion, or separation of minority,

 vulnerable age, or low‐income individuals within a given community or from the broader

community; and

 the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of

USDOT programs, policies, or activities.

This assessment centered on an examination of the socioeconomic makeup of the Program Study Area.

General demographic information of affected Illinois and Wisconsin corridor communities was

acknowledged. These trends are compared to the respective U.S. state trends as well as to the U.S.

population behavior.

The minority and low‐income populations along the Program Study Area were identified using data from

the 2010 Census. The racial make‐up and percentage of families whose income is below the poverty level

data were used to define any tracts in which minority or low‐income populations might receive

disproportionately high or adverse impacts as a result of the Proposed Action.

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.1.1 Low-Income Populations 

As stated above, low‐income populations are identified as families or persons whose income is below the

poverty level, as measured by the U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau follows the Office of Management

and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 14 (Definition of Poverty for Statistical Purposes) to measure

poverty. The Census Bureau “uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐7
   

   

       

   

   

                                

                                  

                                        

                                 

                

                               

                              

                             

                               

                               

   

                                                            

                   

                   

       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

composition to determine who is in poverty.” These “poverty thresholds” are the dollar amounts used to

determine poverty status. The Census Bureau assigns each person orfamily one out of 48 possible poverty

thresholds based on the size of family unit and number of children under 18 years of age.28 If a family’s

earned income is less than the assigned poverty threshold, that family is considered to be “in poverty”

and, for the purposes of this analysis, low‐income.

Figure 3‐2 presents the percentage of population below the poverty threshold by city and county along

the Build Alternative route. As is illustrated in Figure 3‐3, the existence and concentration of low‐income

populations varies widely in the Program Study Area, with the highest concentrations of low‐income areas

occurring near Chicago and Milwaukee and in small clusters in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties.

Low‐income data was derived from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data from the 2010 U.S.

Census.29

28 U.S. Census Bureau: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty, http://www.census.gov/topics/income‐

poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty‐measures.html 29 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 2008 ‐ 2012 American Community Survey.

Last Revised: Tuesday, 08‐Jul‐2014

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐8
   

   

       

   

   

   

         

   

   

   

   

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐2

Population Rates below Poverty Threshold

Percentage Below

Location Poverty Threshold

(%)

Kenosha County 12.2

Racine County 12.6

Milwaukee County 20.9

Milwaukee 28.3

Kenosha 16.2

Mount Pleasant 7.2

Oak Creek 6.3

Caledonia 5.7

Sturtevant 5.2

Pleasant Prairie 4.6

Somers (Town of) 5.4

State of Wisconsin 12.5

Cook County 16.4

Lake County 8.7

Chicago 22.1

Niles 10.3

Skokie 9.5

Morton Grove 6.5

Golf 1.2

Glenview 3.7

Northbrook 4.0

Deerfield 2.7

Bannockburn 9.6

Lake Forest 4.5

Green Oaks 6.6

Waukegan 18.8

Gurnee 4.1

Wadsworth 2.6

State of Illinois 13.7

U.S. 14.9

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐9
   

   

       

   

   

   

                     

                              

                                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐3

2006‐2010 U.S. Census Tracts below Poverty Threshold, Chicago‐Milwaukee Program Study Area

3.4.1.2 Minority Populations 

Minority population data was also derived from the 2010 U.S. Census. Minority populations are defined

as set forth by the U.S. Census Bureau and include Black, Asian, and American Indian, Hispanic, and

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐10
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                            

                                

                              

     

   

                                                            

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

“Others.” The occurrences of minority populations in Cook County, Illinois and Milwaukee County,

Wisconsin are substantially higher than their respective state averages. Figure 3‐4 depicts the minority

populations by location for Cook County and Lake County, IL. Figure 3‐5 depicts the minority populations

by location for Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee, WI. The distribution of minority populationsisillustrated

in Figure 3‐6.30

30 United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐11
   

   

       

   

   

   

                 

       

   

      

  

   

  

   

  

  

  

  

   

  

  

  

   

  

   

  

  

   

  

  

         

  

  

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐4

2010 Populations for Cook County and Lake County, IL

Location White Black American

Indian Hispanic Asian Other

COOK COUNTY 2,278,358 1,331,016 45,040 1,244,762 362,929 614,487

Percent (%) 43.9 25.6 0.9 24 7 11.8

Chicago 854,717 872,286 26,933 778,862 166,770 397,632

31.7 32.4 1 28.9 6.2 14.7

Niles 21,332 388 20 2582 4,950 1,280

71.6 1.3 0.1 8.7 16.6 4.3

Skokie 35,955 4,566 349 5728 16,437 2,810

55.5 7 0.5 8.8 25.4 4.3

Morton Grove 14,426 279 106 1504 6,933 623

62 1.2 0.5 6.5 29.8 2.6

Golf 469 4 3 41 21 15

93.8 0.8 0.6 8.2 4.2 3.0

Glenview 35,435 431 25 2584 5,535 871

79.3 1 0.1 5.8 12.4 1.9

Northbrook 28,915 201 52 828 3,869 196

87.2 0.6 0.2 2.5 11.7 0.6

LAKE COUNTY 458,701 46,989 4,097 139,987 50,565 49,821

65.2 6.70 1.00 19.90 7.20 7.0

Deerfield 17,296 119 43 510 792 167

94.9 0.7 0.2 2.8 4.3 0.9

Bannockburn 1,245 108 10 53 237 22

78.6 6.8 0.6 3.3 15 1.4

Lake Forest 17,474 196 75 542 1,066 177

90.2 1 0.4 2.8 5.5 1.0

Green Oaks 3,449 87 10 128 326 50

89.2 2.3 0.3 3.3 8.4 1.3

Waukegan 19,370 18,333 1,628 47,612 4,401 24,111

21.7 20.6 1.8 53.4 4.9 27.1

Gurnee 20,872 2,362 266 3,665 3,601 1,556

66.7 7.5 0.8 11.7 11.5 5.0

Wadsworth 3,180 154 26 337 89 173

83.4 4 0.7 8.8 2.3 4.6

State of Illinois 9,423,048 1,974,913 101,151 2,027,578 668,032 958,603

73.4 15.4 0.8 15.8 5.2 7.3

U.S. 231,040,398 42,020,743 5,049,092 50,477,594 17,285,143 17,524,712

74.8 13.6 1.7 16.3 5.6 5.2

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐12
   

   

       

   

   

   

                 

   

   

  

   

  

    

  

   

  

   

  

       

  

  

  

   

  

   

  

  

     

  

  

                                         

             

           

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐5

2010 Populations for Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties, WI

Location White Black American Indian Hispanic Asian Other

KENOSHA COUNTY 143,664 13,336 1,849 19,592 3,310 9399

86.3 8.0 1.1 11.8 2.0 5.6

Pleasant Prairie 18,307 622 160 1,332 446 590

92.8 3.2 0.8 6.8 2.3 3.0

Kenosha (City) 79,810 11,826 1,353 16,130 2,324 7,952

80.4 11.9 1.4 16.3 2.3 8.0

(Town) Somers 8,658 553 85 614 253 283

90.2 5.8 0.9 6.4 2.6 3.0

RACINE COUNTY 160,116 24,471 1,806 22,546 2,708 11,553

81.9 12.5 0.9 11.5 1.4 5.9

Mount Pleasant 23,005 2,023 179 1,149** 660 903

87.8 7.7 0.7 5.0** 2.5 3.5

Sturtevant 5,619 1,181 76 424 108 150

80.6 16.9 1.1 6.1 1.5 2.2

Caledonia 23,061 865 219 1,303 565 470

93.3 3.5 0.9 5.3 2.3 1.9

MILWAUKEE COUNTY 598,222 269,246 13,729 126,039 37,497 59,808

63.1 28.4 1.4 13.3 4.0 6.3

Oak Creek 30,888 1,211 411 2,582 1,808 918

89.7 3.5 1.2 7.5 5.2 2.7

Milwaukee 282,615 250,003 9,678 103 23,685 50,998

47.5 42.0 1.6 17.3 4.0 8.5

State of Wisconsin 4,995,836 403,527 86,228 336,056 151,513 161,611

87.8 7.1 1.5 5.9 2.7 2.9

U.S. 236,362,158 41,945,466 5,049,092 50,477,594 17,285,143 17,524,712

76.5 13.6 1.6 16.3 5.6 5.2

Notes:

* Numbers may add to more than the total population, and the percentages may add to more than 100 percent because

individuals may report more than one race.

** US Census: 2000 Demographic Profile

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐13
   

   

       

   

   

   

                   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐6

2006‐2010 U.S. Census Tracts Percent Minority, Chicago‐Milwaukee Program Study Area

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐14
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                       

                                

                             

           

                                 

                              

                               

                                   

                                   

                                  

                            

                       

   

                                 

                             

                               

                             

   

                                

                             

                      

                             

                               

                           

                                  

                                 

                               

                             

                       

                           

                          

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.4.2 Potential Impacts

3.4.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative consists of operating the current Hiawatha Service between Chicago and

Milwaukee at the present level of service. Existing air quality and noise conditions would continue.

Minority and low‐income populations would not have access to the increased mobility that the proposed

increase in Hiawatha Service would provide.

3.4.2.2 Build Alternative 

Minority populations are higher than the State average in four counties in the Project Study Area: Cook

County, IL and Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties, WI. Cook, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties also

have populations whose income below the poverty level is greater than their respective State averages.

The noise and vibration analysis (discussed in its entirety in Section 3.7) indicated that there would be no

moderate or severe noise and vibration impacts as a result of the increase of service under the Build

Alternative. Impacts from the increase in service on adjacent land uses would be minimal due to the

presence of existing Amtrak, commuter, and freight traffic. Because of this, communities with minority

and low‐income populations above State averages would not be adversely impacted by the Build

Alternative.

Similarly, the air quality analysis (discussed in its entirety in Section 3.8) indicated that the increase of

service under the Build Alternative would not produce emissions that would violate the National Ambient

Air Quality Standardsin the five‐county area in which the Program islocated. Because of this, communities

with minority and low‐income populations above State averages would not be adversely impacted by the

Build Alternative.

Section 3.2 identified two projects that would require land acquisition in order to construct. Neither the

Metra Fox Lake Second Track project nor the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform project

would require the displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations. Therefore,

minority and low‐income populations above State averages would not be adversely impacted by the Build

Alternative.

Section 3.6 discusses impacts to the transportation system as a result of the Build Alternative. In

particular, highway/rail at‐grade crossings are evaluated for the change in average daily gate closure time

due to the increase of service under the Build Alternative. As three round trips of Hiawatha Service are

added to the corridor, the gates at highway/rail at‐grade crossings would be lowered more often than in

the No‐Build Alternative and the increase in gate closure time would likely result in increased vehicular

delays at crossings. Grade crossings in twelve communities in Illinois (Chicago, Niles, Skokie, Morton

Grove, Glenview, Northbrook, Deerfield, Bannockburn, Lake Forest, Green Oaks, North Chicago, and

Wadsworth) and six in Wisconsin (Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, Mount Pleasant, Sturtevant, Oak Creek, and

Milwaukee) would experience increased vehicular and pedestrian delays due to the Build Alternative.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐15
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                             

                         

                                 

                        

   

                 

       

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

      

   

   

   

       

   

   

        

   

   

       

         

     

   

      

         

   

     

     

        

         

   

     

       

        

     

     

                             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

More detailed census data was used to determine potential environmental justice impacts in areas where

increased vehicular and pedestrian delays would occur at crossings. Analysis of census block data

identified minority and/or low‐income populations adjacent to the highway/rail at‐grade crossings in all

communities listed in the above paragraph except in Lake Forest, IL and Bannockburn, IL and near several

crossings in Deerfield, IL. Figure 3‐7 summarizes the environmental justice findings by city.

Figure 3‐7

Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts at Highway/Rail At‐Grade Crossings

Location

(County / City)

Low‐Income

Population Above

County Level?

Minority Population

Above County Level?

Percentage Increase in

Average Daily Gate

Closure Time from No‐

Build Alternative

Cook County

Chicago No Yes, Asian 13.0%

Niles Yes Yes, Asian 13.0%

Skokie Yes Yes, Asian 13.0%

Morton Grove Yes Yes, Asian 13.0%

Glenview No Yes, Asian 13.0%

Northbrook No Yes, Asian 3.4%

Lake County

Deerfield No Yes, Asian 2.2%

Bannockburn No No 2.2%

Lake Forest No No 2.2%

Green Oaks Yes Yes, Asian 2.2%

North Chicago Yes Yes, Hispanic and

Asian 3.1%

Wadsworth No Yes, African American

and Asian 3.1%

Kenosha County

Pleasant Prairie No Yes, African American

and Asian 3.1%

Kenosha No Yes, Hispanic, African

American, and Asian 3.1%

Racine County

Mount Pleasant No Yes, African American

and Asian 3.5%

Sturtevant No Yes, African American 3.5%

Oak Creek No Yes, Asian 3.5%

Milwaukee County

Milwaukee Yes Yes, Hispanic, African

American, and Asian 3.9%

Note:

* 2010‐2014 American Community Survey data for Selected Economic Characteristics and Demographic and Housing Estimates

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐16
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                             

                           

                          

                             

                             

                           

                     

                               

                                     

                                  

                            

                       

         

                               

                        

                                 

                              

                                   

                   

                               

     

	 	

                         

                                                            

         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐7 shows that most cities with highway/rail at‐grade crossings have instances of low‐income

and/or minority populations located in the census blocks adjacent to the crossings. Though crossing

delays would impact census block areas with low‐income and minority populations, areas without those

populations would also be impacted by crossing delays. Therefore, low‐income and minority populations

would not receive disproportionately high or adverse impacts as a result of the Proposed Action.

Increased service under the Build Alternative would also positively impact EJ populations. The increase in

rail service in the corridor would provide greater mobility and employment opportunities to residents of

communities throughout the corridor, benefitting all residents, including low‐income and minority

populations.

The noise and vibration analyses for the ten proposed improvement projects (discussed in its entirety in

Section 3.7) indicated that there would be no severe noise and vibration impacts as a result of the Build

Alternative. Impacts from the increase in service on adjacent land uses would be minimal due to the

presence of existing Amtrak, commuter, and freight traffic. Because of this, communities with minority

and low‐income populations above State averages would not be adversely impacted by the Build

Alternative and these projects.

3.5 Agriculture

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to “minimize the impact Federal programs have on

the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.”31 The purpose of the

FPPA isto ensure that federal programs are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies

to protect farmland. Farmland includes “prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local

importance. Farmland does not have to be used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland,

or other land, but not water or urban built‐up land.”

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Agriculture is one of the predominant land uses in the project corridor, and several farm operations

straddle the railroad right‐of‐way.

3.5.2 Potential Impacts

3.5.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would require no additional property and would not impact agricultural

properties.

31 Natural Resources Conservation Service,

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs143_008275

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐17
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                       

                         

                                

                               

             

                             

                                       

                                  

                             

   

                   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.5.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in service under the Build Alternative would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses

and would have no impact on farmland adjacent to the Program corridor.

A majority of the proposed improvement projects would be constructed within the railroad right‐of‐way

and would not impact agricultural properties that exist adjacent to the corridor. Two projects require the

acquisition of land adjacent to the rail right‐of‐way: Metra Fox Lake Second Track project and Milwaukee

Airport Rail Station Second Platform project.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey application was used to verify whether the

0.78 acres to be acquired for the Metra Fox Lake project and the 0.07 acres for the Milwaukee Airport Rail

Station project are considered prime farmland. Figure 3‐8 depicts the soil map for the Metra Fox Lake

project and Figure 3‐9 depicts the soil map for the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station project.

Figure 3‐8

Soil Map for the Metra Fox Lake Second Track Project

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐18
   

   

       

   

   

   

                     

                             

                                 

                                

                                 

                              

                                 

                          

                             

                                   

                                  

                   

                       

                    

   

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐9

Soil Map for the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform Project

The Survey confirmed that both properties are considered prime farmland. IDOA and NRCS were

consulted for potential impacts to the 0.78 acre property adjacent to the Metra Fox Lake Second Track

project. IDOA determined that the project would be exempt from further review because it requires less

than 3 acres per mile of land acquisition for the entire project in accordance with the IDOT‐IDOA

Cooperative Working Agreement on the protection of Illinois farmland. Because of the parcel’s size (0.78

ag acres) and its location adjacent to the railroad’s existing ROW, IDOA and NRCS determined the project

complies with the IL Farmland Preservation Act and the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act.

DATCP was consulted for potential impacts to the 0.07‐acre property adjacent to the Milwaukee Airport

Rail Station Second Track project. Because the land that is proposed to be acquired is not currently

farmed, it does not fall under DATCP’s jurisdiction. The project does not need to further coordinate with

DATCP and an Agriculture Impact Statement is not needed.

3.6 Transportation

This section evaluates the impact of the Build Alternative on the existing transportation environment

between Chicago and Milwaukee. The discussion focuses on three major components:

 Regional transportation network

 Highway/rail at‐grade crossings

 Rail network

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐19
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                                  

   

         

             

               

                             

                              

                             

                           

                           

                               

                               

                         

                            

   

                               

                 

                                                            

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.6.1 Affected Environment

3.6.1.1 Regional Transportation Network 

The existing transportation network within the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor is comprised of highway,

intercity bus, air, and rail service. Figure 3‐10 depicts the existing share of ridership among these travel

modes.32

Figure 3‐10

Chicago‐Milwaukee Modal Share of Ridership

Travel Mode Existing Person‐Trips (Year 2000) Modal Share

Rail 74,700 0.51%

Air 27,800 0.19%

Bus 101,700 0.71%

Auto 14,221,400 98.59%

Total 14,425,600 100%

These modes are discussed further in the sections below.

3.6.1.1.1 Highway 

Major highways connecting Chicago and Milwaukee include Interstate 94 (I‐94), U.S. Highway 41, and U.S.

Highway 45. A number ofstate and county highways also provide north‐south connectivity in the corridor.

I‐94 serves as the main intercity route for automobiles and trucks traveling between Chicago and

Milwaukee. The route parallels Amtrak’s existing Chicago‐Milwaukee route for most of the travel corridor.

I‐94 currently is undergoing reconstruction and expansion between Chicago and Milwaukee. As of June

2016, a fourth lane in each direction along segments of I‐94 has been completed in Illinois. Reconstruction

and the addition of a fourth lane in each direction—the I‐94 North‐South Freeway Project—is ongoing in

Wisconsin.

3.6.1.1.2 Intercity Bus 

Intercity bus service in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor currently is provided by Greyhound, Megabus,

and Wisconsin Coach Lines/Coach USA. Intercity bus service has greatly increased in the corridor since

2009.

With the introduction of Greyhound Express service in 2010, Greyhound now provides up to 13 daily

round‐trips between downtown Chicago (Greyhound's downtown Chicago terminal is approximately

32 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, 2004, Exhibit 4‐15, 2000 Base Year Person‐Trips

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐20
   

   

       

   

   

                       

                               

                         

                           

                             

                         

                           

                             

                   

       

                   

                           

                            

                                     

                            

     

                               

                         

                             

                           

                           

     

                               

                                 

                       

      

                            

                           

                             

                    

                                    

                                 

                             

                        

                                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

three blocks from Chicago Union Station) and downtown Milwaukee (Milwaukee Intermodal Station).

Greyhound buses travel between Chicago and Milwaukee in approximately 1 hour 50 minutes to 2 hours

20 minutes, and they typically do not make intermediate stops. Greyhound provides its Chicago‐

Milwaukee service with standard size coaches that each typically seat 47 or 55 passengers.

Megabus provides 2 daily round‐trips between downtown Chicago (with a stop next to Chicago Union

Station) and downtown Milwaukee (with a stop approximately one block from Milwaukee Intermodal

station) as part of its Chicago‐Minneapolis, MN service. Megabus buses travel between Chicago and

Milwaukee in approximately 2 hours, and do not make any intermediate stops. Megabus provides its

Chicago‐Milwaukee‐Minneapolis service with both standard size coaches and double‐decker coaches

which seat 81 passengers.

Wisconsin Coach Lines/Coach USA provides frequent service between Chicago’s O’Hare International

Airport and Waukesha, WI with intermediate stops located at the Milwaukee Intermodal Station; General

Mitchell International Airport; the Coach USA bus terminal in Milwaukee; Racine, WI; and Kenosha, WI.

Coach USA provides 15 round trips daily between O’Hare and Waukesha and has a travel time of 2 hours

35 minutes. Coach USA provides its Waukesha‐O’Hare service with standard size coaches which seat 56

or 58 passengers.

In total, intercity bus providers currently offer up to 30 daily round‐trips in the Chicago‐Milwaukee travel

corridor. Assuming 55 passengers per coach, intercity buses currently offer approximately 1,650 seats

daily in each direction to travelers in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor. An additional 7 daily round‐trips

are offered by Wisconsin Coach Lines between Milwaukee and Kenosha. These buses provide an

additional 385 seats daily in each direction in the Milwaukee‐Kenosha portion of the greater Chicago‐

Milwaukee travel corridor.

The robust intercity bus service in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor is not a direct competitor to Amtrak’s

service in the corridor. This is demonstrated in the fact that as intercity bus companies have expanded

their Chicago‐Milwaukee service in recent years, Hiawatha Service ridership has continued to increase at

strong, consistent rates.

3.6.1.1.3 Intercity Passenger Rail 

WisDOT and IDOT have jointly contracted with Amtrak to operate the Hiawatha Service since 1989. The

intercity passenger rail service currently operates between Union Station in Chicago, IL and Milwaukee

Intermodal Station (MIS) in Milwaukee, WI with intermediate stops in Glenview, IL, Sturtevant, WI, and

Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport. The Hiawatha Service offers seven daily round trips

Monday through Saturday and six daily round trips on Sunday. With a typical capacity of 416 seats per

train and 7 round trips per day (Monday through Saturday) and 6 round trips on Sunday, the Hiawatha

Service offers approximately 2,912 seats Monday through Saturday and 2,496 on Sunday in each direction

to travelers in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor. Hiawatha Service trains operate with a maximum speed

of 79 miles per hour (MPH) and make the 86‐mile trip between Chicago and Milwaukee in about 1 hour

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐21
   

   

       

   

   

                        

                               

          

                     

                       

                        

                             

                        

                              

                              

                  

                       

                   

     

               

             

           

         

       

             

           

     

         

                 

               

               

           

         

                   

                           

                          

                           

                               

                           

                             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

29 minutes. Passengers using the Hiawatha Service include those making occasional trips using standard

single‐ride tickets and those making frequent trips(e.g., for commuting to work) using ten‐ride or monthly

passes. Hiawatha Service seats are unreserved.

Amtrak also currently operatesitslong‐distance Empire Builderservice in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor.

The Empire Builder operates between Chicago, IL, Milwaukee, WI, Minneapolis‐St. Paul, MN and Seattle,

WA/Portland, OR. In the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor, the Empire Builder makes an intermediate stop in

Glenview, IL. The Empire Builder operates once per day in each direction. The train operates with a

maximum speed of 79 MPH. Because the Empire Builder caters to long‐distance travelers, north‐bound

trains stop in Glenview and Milwaukee only to receive passengers. Southbound trains stop in Milwaukee

and Glenview only to discharge passengers. Amtrak operates the Empire Builder as a component of its

national network—no states contract with Amtrak to provide the service.

The Hiawatha Service and the Empire Builder both provide the opportunity for passengers to directly

connect at Chicago Union Station with fourteen other Amtrak routes:

Midwest Corridor Routes

 Carl Sandburg and Illinois Zephyr (Chicago, IL‐Quincy, IL)

 Lincoln Service (Chicago, IL‐Springfield, IL‐St. Louis, MO)

 Illini and Saluki (Chicago, IL‐Champaign/Urbana, IL‐Carbondale, IL)

 Hoosier State (Chicago, IL‐Indianapolis, IN)

 Wolverine (Chicago, IL‐Detroit, MI)

 Blue Water (Chicago, IL‐Lansing, MI‐Port Huron, MI)

 Pere Marquette (Chicago, IL‐Grand Rapids, MI)

Long Distance Routes

 California Zephyr (Chicago, IL‐Emeryville, CA)

 Southwest Chief (Chicago, IL‐Kansas City, MO‐Albuquerque, NM‐Los Angeles, CA)

 Texas Eagle (Chicago, IL‐St. Louis, MO‐San Antonio, TX)

 City of New Orleans (Chicago, IL‐New Orleans, LA)

 Cardinal (Chicago, IL‐Indianapolis, IN‐Cincinnati, OH‐Washington, DC‐New York, NY)

 Capitol Limited (Chicago, IL‐Cleveland, OH‐Pittsburgh, PA‐Washington, DC)

 Lake Shore Limited (Chicago, IL‐Cleveland, OH‐Albany, NY‐New York, NY/Boston, MA)

The Amtrak route operating between Chicago and St. Louis is currently undergoing improvements to

improve reliability and increase speedsto a maximum of 110 MPH. The Chicago‐Detroit‐Pontiac, Michigan

corridor also is currently undergoing improvements to improve reliability and increase speeds to a

maximum of 110 MPH. New and upgraded service on these corridors combined with more frequent

Hiawatha Service make interconnectivity at Chicago Union Station an attractive option for riders. In

addition, as of October 2016, the Chicago‐Pontiac corridor is close to completing an Environmental Impact

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐22
   

   

       

   

   

        

                               

                   

                     

                           

                               

                               

                                 

                                

                     

                         

                                  

                                 

   

     

     

             

             

           

             

                                   

                        

                                     

                                 

                                     

                                    

                                            

                                           

                                    

                               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Statement for additional frequencies.

Because Chicago Union Station is a terminus for many of Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail routes, the

company performs train equipment (including Hiawatha Service and Empire Builder equipment) cleaning

and maintenance in Chicago. Amtrak also uses Chicago as a crew base.

The Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (MARS) allows travelers to make rail‐air connections at General

Mitchell International Airport. It is one of only four intercity passenger rail stations in the nation located

at an airport and providing a rail‐air link. A dedicated airport shuttle transfers passengers between MARS

and the airport’s main terminal. A number of people residing in Chicago and northern Illinois use the

Milwaukee airport as an alternative to O’Hare and Midway airports. Some of the users of the Hiawatha

Service air/rail connection at MARS come from Chicago and northern Illinois.

3.6.1.2 Grade Crossings 

The Hiawatha Service operates between two densely populated metropolitan areas on tracks owned by

Metra and CP. There are 39 public highway/rail at‐grade crossings in Illinois and 24 public crossings in

Wisconsin.

In addition to highway/rail at‐grade crossings, the route also crosses other rail lines at‐grade, as shown in

Figure 3‐11.

Figure 3‐11

Rail/Rail At‐Grade Crossings

Location Railroad No. of Tracks

Crossed

Tower A2, Chicago, IL UP Geneva Subdivision 3

Grayland, Chicago, IL UP Cragin Industrial Lead 1

Mayfair, Chicago, IL UP Harvard Subdivision 3

Rondout, Lake Forest, IL EJ&E Western Subdivision 1

With more than 60 Metra commuter trips, 16 Amtrak trips, and 25 freight trips occurring daily in the

corridor, vehicles traveling through at‐grade crossings already experience delays. Since vehicle queuing

data and vehicle delay is not available for each crossing along the corridor, the metric used in this report

to compare crossing delays is gate closure time. Average gate closure times at each crossing were

calculated first by determining the time that each gate would be down at every crossing for all train types

that use the corridor. The time each gate is down is calculated by adding the advanced warning time

before a train arrives at the gate to the time it takes a train to cross a crossing. Gates lower 20 seconds

before a train arrives at a crossing and the time it takes a train to pass through a crossing is calculated by

dividing the train length by the speed of the train. This procedure was performed for every crossing.

Figure 3‐12 summarizes the average grade crossing closure times in the corridor by track segment for

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐23
   

   

       

   

   

                      

   

         

     

  

     

     

  

     

     

  

     

     

     

         

   

         

         

         

   

         

   

         

   

         

   

         

   

       

             

             

   

                     

                     

                               

                              

                                   

                              

                                        

                                   

   

                                 

                                                            

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

existing conditions.33 The grade crossings were grouped into segments of equal crossing delay.

Figure 3‐12

Existing Crossing Gate Closure Times

Crossing Delay –

Metra

(minutes per day)

Crossing Delay –

Amtrak

(minutes per day)

Crossing Delay –

Freight

(minutes per day)

Total Crossing Delay

(minutes per day)

Segment 1: Clinton St to

Racine Ave 22.3 6.0 * 28.3

Segment 2: Western Ave Yard 5.6 1.5 * 7.1

Segment 3: Tower A‐5 Yard 22.3 6.0 * 28.3

Segment 4: Central Ave to

Chestnut Ave 4.2 1.2 * 5.4

Segment 5: Techny Rd to

Shermer Rd 13.4 3.6 47.3 64.3

Segment 6: Dundee Rd to

Park Ave 4.2 1.2 19.7 25.1

Segment 7: Atkinson Ave to

Durand Ave ** 1.2 19.7 20.9

Segment 8: Spring St to

Unnamed Crossing ** 1.3 19.7 21.0

Segment 9: Plankington Ave ** 6.0 118.2 124.2

Segment 10: 12th St to 13th St ** 2.3 30.3 32.6

Segment 11: 17th St to 27th St

@ Greves ** 2.3 31.2 33.5

Notes:

* Freight trains do not operate in this segment of track

** Metra trains do not operate in this segment of track

3.6.1.3 Rail Network 

3.6.1.3.1 Freight Rail 

The current Amtrak Hiawatha Service operates on the CP Chicago & Milwaukee Subdivision (CP C&M Sub)

between Rondout, a railroad control point located in Lake Forest, IL, and Milwaukee. Approximately 25

CP trains use thisroute daily to travel between Milwaukee and points west and Tower A‐20 in Northbrook,

IL. Two Wisconsin & Southern Railroad (WSOR) trains operate between Milwaukee and Tower A‐5, where

they depart the CP C&M Sub and turn west on the CP Elgin Subdivision. A majority of these trains travel

on the CP C&M Sub in order to access CP’s Bensenville Yard, located just south of Chicago O’Hare

International Airport.

3.6.1.3.2 Commuter Rail 

Metra, the commuter rail operator in Chicago, owns and operates on the track from Chicago Union Station

33 Madison‐Milwaukee‐Chicago RTC Model, HNTB Corp., 2009

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐24
   

   

       

   

   

                            

                                   

                              

                                  

                                   

                                  

                                   

	 	

                              

                              

                               

                              

                 

   

           

     

  

     

     

  

     

     

  

     

     

     

         

   

         

         

         

   

         

   

         

   

         

   

         

   

       

             

             

   

                     

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

(CUS) through Rondout. Metra operates 62 weekday commuter trains between CUS and Deerfield, with

49 of those trains continuing north to Lake Forest and 47 continuing to Rondout where they diverge onto

the Metra Fox Lake Subdivision. Commuter service also operates on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays on

approximately 2‐hour headways. Figure 1‐1 in Chapter 1 of the EA shows a map of the corridor.

The Metra‐owned portion of the route has three main tracks from CUS to Tower A‐5 and two main tracks

from Tower A‐5 to Rondout. The route is equipped with Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) and is dispatched

by Amtrak and Metra between CUS and Tower A‐2, and by CP between Tower A‐2 and Rondout.

3.6.2 Potential Impacts

3.6.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No‐Build Alternative, the local and regional transportation networks would not change. It is

expected that automobile travel would continue to increase due to normal regional growth. Intercity bus

travel may also increase. Grade crossings would only be affected by increases in automobile traffic. The

No‐Build Alternative would not impact traffic patterns at the existing stations. Figure 3‐13 shows the

crossing gate closure times for the No Build Alternative.

Figure 3‐13

No‐Build Alternative Crossing Gate Closure Times

Crossing Delay –

Metra

(minutes per day)

Crossing Delay –

Amtrak

(minutes per day)

Crossing Delay –

Freight

(minutes per day)

Total Crossing Delay

(minutes per day)

Segment 1: Clinton St to

Racine Ave 22.3 6.0 * 28.3

Segment 2: Western Ave Yard 5.6 1.5 * 7.1

Segment 3: Tower A‐5 Yard 22.3 6.0 * 28.3

Segment 4: Central Ave to

Chestnut Ave 4.2 1.2 * 5.4

Segment 5: Techny Rd to

Shermer Rd 13.4 3.6 51.2 68.1

Segment 6: Dundee Rd to

Park Ave 4.2 1.2 21.3 26.8

Segment 7: Atkinson Ave to

Durand Ave ** 1.2 21.3 22.5

Segment 8: Spring St to

Unnamed Crossing ** 1.3 21.3 22.6

Segment 9: Plankington Ave ** 6.0 127.9 133.9

Segment 10: 12th St to 13th St ** 2.3 33.6 35.9

Segment 11: 17th St to 27th St

@ Greves ** 2.3 33.6 35.9

Notes:

* Freight trains do not operate in this segment of track

** Metra trains do not operate in this segment of track

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐25
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                               

                              

                   

                             

             

                               

                                 

                               

                              

                                

                                   

                              

                         

   

                   

      

   

   

   

   

                           

   

                   

                   

                                                            

                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.6.2.2 Build Alternative 

3.6.2.2.1 Regional Transportation Network 

One purpose of the Program is to expand modal options to provide an alternative to traffic delay,

reliability issues, and long travel times related to existing and future highway congestion in the Program

Study Area. Implementation of the Build Alternative would provide a more robust rail network in the

corridor and is expected to impact the regional transportation by:

 Diverting a small percentage of riders from auto, bus, or air travel modes to rail

 Increasing rail traffic at highway/rail at‐grade crossings

Amtrak provided ridership and revenue forecasting for the project as part of its Route and Service

Evaluation. The results of the forecast were provided in the report titled Route & Service Financial

Evaluation for Ten Daily Round Trips on Hiawatha Service dated August 15, 2014 (Revised August 26,

2014). Amtrak forecasted that ridership on the Hiawatha Service would increase due to natural growth

of travel demand in the corridor, induced demand, and diverted demand. Induced demand is defined as

those trips that would not have been made without the increase in service, while diverted demand is the

result of travelers changing travel mode.34 Figure 3‐14 shows the Hiawatha Service ridership and the

diverted trips generated by the Build Alternative for years 2019 and 2040.

Figure 3‐14

Hiawatha Service Ridership and Diverted Trips for the Build Alternative

Total Ridership Diverted Trips

Build Alternative,

FY 2019 980,200 101,100

Build Alternative,

FY 2040 1,150,000 118,600

Figure 3‐15 shows the diverted trips from each mode of transportation to rail.

Figure 3‐15

Hiawatha Service Diverted Trips for the Build Alternative by Mode

Travel Mode Diverted Trips (Year 2019) Diverted Trips (Year 2040)

Air 196 230

Bus 716 840

Auto 100,188 117,530

34 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, 2004, Page 4‐49

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐26
   

   

       

   

   

                               

                                

                                     

                             

                                 

                           

                             

                             

                             

                   

                               

                 

                                     

                              

                               

                                 

                               

                                 

                           

   

                                

                             

   

     

                               

                                

   

                                                            

                       

  

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Highway

According to the 2008 Final EIS for the I‐94 reconstruction and expansion project in Wisconsin, traffic

volumes on I‐94 are projected to continue to increase through 2035.35 Traffic volumes in Kenosha County

are expected to increase by 41% (an increase from 78,000 to 110,000 vehicles per day in 2035 near the

Kenosha County‐Racine County border) to 49% (an increase from 85,000 to 127,000 vehicles per day in

2035 in central Kenosha County). Traffic volumes in Racine County are expected to increase by 38% (an

increase from 88,000 vehicles per day to 121,000 vehicles per day near the Racine County‐Milwaukee

County border). Traffic volumes are projected to increase 10% (an increase from 156,000 to 171,000

vehicles per day north of the General Mitchell International Airport Spur) in Milwaukee County. Travel

times between Chicago and Milwaukee on I‐94 can vary significantly between peak and off‐peak periods

and ranges from 1 3⁄4 to 2 1⁄2 hours.

The projected increases in traffic volumes assumed a significant increase in public transit in the region,

including implementation of the proposed Kenosha‐Racine‐Milwaukee commuter rail project—which no

longer is an active project. As a result, projected increases in I‐94 traffic volumes could be higher if

assumed transit projects do not get implemented. In addition, the projected traffic volume growth rates

do not include increased traffic attracted to the higher‐capacity freeway. The I‐94 EIS indicated that the

induced demand is forecast to add an additional 2% to 12% to the expected future traffic volumes.

While some auto users would be diverted from auto to the enhanced Hiawatha Service, as indicated in

Figure 3‐15, the overall volume of traffic in the I‐94 corridor would still increase because the percentage

of diverted autos is very small compared to the high volume of highway traffic.

Intercity Bus

There are no changes to intercity bus proposed by the Build Alternative. Private bus companies may

decide to increase service to stations on the Build Alternative route to accommodate the additional

Hiawatha Service frequencies.

Intercity Passenger Rail

The Build Alternative proposes to add three round trips per day to the existing Hiawatha Service intercity

passenger rail schedule. The proposed 10 round trip schedule is presented in Figures 3‐16 and 3‐17.

35 Interstate 94 North‐South Freeway Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wisconsin Department of

Transportation. March 2008.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐27
   

   

       

   

   

   

     

                 

             

             

       

           

       

                           

   

     

                 

         

       

   

   

                           

                             

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐16

Proposed Build Alternative Schedule ‐ Northbound

Build Alternative Schedule for 10 Round Trips at 79 MPH

327 329 331 333 335 337 339 341 343 345

Station Mile Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily

Chicago, IL 0 6:15 AM 8:25 AM 9:25 AM 10:25 AM 1:05 PM 3:15 PM 5:08 PM 6:45 PM 8:05 PM 10:30 PM

Glenview, IL 17 6:37 AM 8:47 AM 9:47 AM 10:47 AM 1:32 PM 3:37 PM 5:32 PM 7:07 PM 8:27 PM 10:52 PM

Sturtevant, WI 62 7:14 AM 9:24 AM 10:24 AM 11:24 AM 2:04 PM 4:14 PM 6:14 PM 7:44 PM 9:04 PM 11:29 PM

Milwaukee Airport, WI 79 7:29 AM 9:39 AM 10:39 AM 11:39 AM 2:19 PM 4:29 PM 6:28 PM 7:59 PM 9:19 PM 11:44 PM

Milwaukee, WI 86 7:44 AM 9:54 AM 10:54 AM 11:54 AM 2:34 PM 4:44 PM 6:45 PM 8:16 PM 9:34 PM 12:01 AM

Total Travel Time 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:37 1:31 1:29 1:31

Figure 3‐17

Proposed Build Alternative Schedule ‐ Southbound

Build Alternative Schedule for 10 Round Trips at 79 MPH

328 330 332 334 336 338 340 342 344 346

Station Mile Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily

Milwaukee, WI 0 6:15 AM 7:25 AM 8:10 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 1:56 PM 3:00 PM 5:45 PM 8:25 PM 10:42 PM

MARS 17 6:26 AM 7:35 AM 8:20 AM 11:10 AM 1:10 PM 2:06 PM 3:10 PM 5:55 PM 8:38 PM 10:52 PM

Sturtevant, WI 62 6:44 AM 7:49 AM 8:34 AM 11:24 AM 1:24 PM 2:20 PM 3:24 PM 6:09 PM 8:52 PM 11:06 PM

Glenview, IL 79 7:25 AM 8:26 AM 9:11 AM 12:01 PM 2:01 PM 2:57 PM 4:01 PM 6:46 PM 9:29 PM 11:43 PM

Chicago, IL 86 7:57 AM 8:59 AM 9:39 AM 12:29 PM 2:29 PM 3:29 PM 4:29 PM 7:14 PM 9:57 PM 12:11 AM

Total Travel Time 1:42 1:34 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:33 1:29 1:29 1:32 1:29

Figure 3‐18 shows the ridership for the No‐Build and Build Alternatives for 2013 through 2040.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐28
   

   

       

   

   

   

           

       

     

       

  

   

   

                             

                                        

                            

                           

                           

                                       

         

   

                                                            

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐18

Build and No‐Build Alternative Forecasted Ridership

Year No‐Build Alternative Build Alternative

Incremental Increase in

Ridership due to Build

Alternative

2013 820,789 ‐ ‐

2015 842,500 ‐ ‐

2019 879,100 980,200 101,100

2020 886,800 988,800 102,000

2025 921,700 1,027,700 106,000

2030 955,200 1,065,100 109,900

2035 993,200 1,107,500 114,300

2040 1,031,400 1,150,000 118,600

Figure 3‐18 illustratesthat if the Build Alternative were implemented, ridership would increase by 101,000

in 2019 and by over 118,000 in year 2040. Refer to Figure 3‐14 and Figure 3‐15 for information on diverted

trips.

3.6.2.2.2 Grade Crossings 

The implementation of the Build Alternative would increase vehicle delays at grade crossings. The average

daily gate closure times were calculated for the Build Alternative assuming 3additional Hiawatha Service

round trips per day, existing Metra frequencies for Milwaukee District North and North Central Service

Lines, and an increase of 2 percent per year in CP traffic. The average daily gate closure times are

summarized in Figure 3‐19.36

36 Madison‐Milwaukee‐Chicago RTC Model, HNTB Corp., 2009

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐29
   

   

       

   

   

   

           

     

  

   

     

     

     

  

   

   

       

     

  

   

   

       

     

   

     

     

         

               

                   

                   

         

               

         

                   

         

                   

       

                 

         

               

                 

         

               

         

                   

                     

                     

                                   

                              

                               

                              

                                   

                                     

                                  

                                 

                               

                            

                           

                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐19

Build Alternative Crossing Gate Closure Times

Crossing Delay due

to Metra

(Increase over No‐

Build Alternative) in

minutes per day

Crossing Delay due

to Amtrak

(Increase over No‐

Build Alternative)

in minutes per day

Crossing Delay due

to Freight

(Increase over No‐

Build Alternative)

in minutes per day

Total Crossing Delay

(Increase over No‐

Build Alternative) in

minutes per day

Segment 1: Clinton St to

Racine Ave 22.3 (0) 9.8 (3.8) * 32.1 (3.8)

Segment 2: Western Ave

Yard 5.6 (0) 2.5 (1.0) * 8.0 (1.0)

Segment 3: Tower A‐5

Yard 22.3 (0) 9.8 (3.8) * 32.1 (3.8)

Segment 4: Central Ave to

Chestnut Ave 4.2 (0) 1.9 (0.7) * 6.1 (0.7)

Segment 5: Techny Rd to

Shermer Rd 13.4 (0) 5.9 (2.3) 51.2 (0) 70.4 (2.3)

Segment 6: Dundee Rd to

Park Ave 4.2 (0) 1.9 (0.7) 21.3 (0) 27.4 (0.7)

Segment 7: Atkinson Ave

to Durand Ave ** 1.9 (0.7) 21.3 (0) 23.2 (0.7)

Segment 8: Spring St to

Unnamed Crossing ** 2.1 (0.8) 21.3 (0) 23.4 (0.8)

Segment 9: Plankington

Ave ** 9.8 (3.8) 127.9 (0) 137.7 (3.8)

Segment 10: 12th St to

13th St ** 3.7 (1.4) 33.6 (0) 37.3 (1.4)

Segment 11: 17th St to

27th St @ Greves ** 3.7 (1.4) 33.6 (0) 37.3 (1.4)

Notes:

* Freight trains do not operate in this segment of track

** Metra trains do not operate in this segment of track

The gate closure times shown in Figure 3‐19 do not completely represent the impact to vehicle traffic at

each crossing. The gates are down a corridor‐wide average of 22.3 minutes in existing conditions, 24.4

minutes in the No‐Build condition and 24.8 minutes in the Build Alternative condition. The Build

Alternative would increase gate closure times by an average of 1.6% over the No‐Build Alternative.

Although it is impossible to determine the exact number of vehicles that would be delayed and how long

each would be delayed at each crossing, an increase of 1.6% in the time a vehicle or pedestrian would

wait at a grade crossing per day is considered minimal and would not impact local traffic significantly.

3.6.2.2.3 Rail Network 

As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, the railroad stakeholders were engaged for several years in identifying

the Investment Alternative to accommodate the increase in Hiawatha Service to 10 round trips per day

through RTC modeling and working group meetings with the project team. The identified Investment

Alternative would mitigate the overall impact of the increased Hiawatha Service on freight and commuter

rail. The operational benefits of each of the Investment Alternative projects are discussed below.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐30
   

   

       

   

   

     

                             

                           

                                  

                                  

                                 

       

                    

                                     

                                        

                                       

                                

       

           

                                 

                                     

                                    

                                

                             

                                

                                   

     

                                        

                                   

                               

                            

                 

       

                           

                                    

                               

                                    

                               

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Glenview Universal Crossover

The purpose of the project is to provide operational flexibility for Metra trains, particularly during

maintenance windows. Metra has seen reduced maintenance windows as a result of several Amtrak

trains and CP trains. By adding a control point at Glenview, Metra would be able to conduct maintenance

activities while allowing trains to cross over to opposite tracks to avoid Metra crews. Installing a control

point at Glenview also helps avoid the need for maintenance work at night, which is opposed by

communities and railroad unions.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternatives 1 and 2

This project proposes to construct a 10,000 foot section of track adjacent to CP and UP mainlines to allow

freight trains to hold off the CP C&M Sub mainline while waiting to get access to the UP Milwaukee Sub.

Instead of holding on the mainline at Rondout, a CP train would be able to travel 12 miles further south

to A‐20. This would reduce delays for passenger and freight rail and would provide additional capacity on

the C&M mainline.

Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

According to the CP C&M Subdivision timetable, expedited freight train speedsin the segment are 60 MPH

and ‘other freight’ speeds are 40 MPH. Passenger speeds are 79 MPH in the segment. This project

proposes a speed increase for ‘other freight trains’ from 40 MPH to 50 MPH. The project would provide

reduced travel times to freight trains traveling through the 12‐mile segment of track. The project also

provides an improvement in capacity in the segment by decreasing the speed differential between freight

and passenger trains. The speed increase is proposed to occur between the railroad control point known

as A‐20 in Northbrook, IL and the railroad control point known as Rondout in Lake Forest, IL.

Deerfield Holding Track

The purpose of this project is to allow Metra to short turn trains north of Deerfield off the main tracks.

Metra currently short turns between 6 and 8 trains per day on the mainline at Deerfield Road, which

means that the mainline is blocked while Metra crews change ends, which can take approximately 15

minutes every time. When Metra short turns their trains off the mainline, capacity for through‐trains

would increase, which would allow for increased schedule flexibility.

Lake Forest Universal Crossover

In conjunction with the Glenview universal crossover, the Lake Forest universal crossover project would

provide operational flexibility for Metra trains. By adding a control point at Lake Forest in addition to the

control point at Glenview, Metra would be able to conduct maintenance activities while allowing trains to

cross over to opposite tracks to avoid Metra crews. Installing a control point at Lake Forest also helps

avoid the need for maintenance work at night, which is opposed by communities and railroad unions.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐31
   

   

       

   

   

     

                                   

                                   

                           

                                           

                              

                                   

         

                         

                               

                                       

                                

                             

           

                                     

                                         

                                  

                                   

                                  

                                 

                            

   

                             

                         

                         

                                

                                  

                             

           

                           

                          

                       

                       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Rondout Siding Extension

The existing siding on the west side of the mainlines and south of the control point at Rondout

(Northbrook, IL) is proposed to be extended approximately 13,000 feet to the south to just north of Illinois

Route 60. The project would provide operational flexibility for both freight and passenger trains. The

siding can be used to allow a CP train to hold off the mainline until it receives clearance to enter the UP

Milwaukee Sub at A‐20, providing increased capacity for Amtrak and Metra trains on the mainlines. The

siding can also be used by Metra as a main track during maintenance windows on the mainline tracks.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

To mitigate the significant operational concerns at Rondout, antiquated signal equipment controlling the

interlocking must be replaced, trackwork within the interlocking upgraded, and a second track on the Fox

Lake Sub constructed to allow for simultaneous moves to and from the Fox Lake Sub at 40 MPH and a

Metra train to hold off the CP C&M mainline and the Fox Lake mainline. These improvements would

significantly improve delays at this critical interlocking by moving stopped trains off the mainline and

increasing through‐speeds.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

This project proposes to install a second rail platform on the west side of the CP tracks, elevator towers

on the east and west sides of the tracks, and a pedestrian bridge to cross from the east side platform to

the west side at the existing Milwaukee Airport Rail Station (MARS) in Milwaukee, WI. Because there is

only one platform in the existing condition, Amtrak trains must use railroad capacity to cross over to the

east track to drop off and pick up passengers at the station. When the second platform is constructed,

congestion would decrease on the mainline tracks because Amtrak would be able to use the proper track

to load and unload passengers. When congestion is decreased, reliability for all users increases.

Muskego Yard Signalization

The Muskego Yard signalization project would provide operational flexibility for CP trains by providing a

two‐track signalized alternative route around Milwaukee Station. CP currently travels through the

Milwaukee Intermodal Station when connecting from the Watertown Subdivision, west of Milwaukee, to

the Chicago & Milwaukee (C&M) Subdivision. By providing two signalized yard tracks, CP would have the

option to divertsome freight through Muskego Yard instead of through the station. In addition, CP freight

trains can be held in Muskego Yard rather than on the C&M mainline if necessary.

Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off CTC Installation

This project provides increased reliability and operational flexibility to Amtrak and freight trains traveling

through the Milwaukee Intermodal Station. By upgrading the signals and providing Centralized Traffic

Control throughout the segment, passenger and freight train movements within the Milwaukee

Intermodal Station would become automatic and remote‐controlled, enabling trains to operate more

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐32
   

   

       

   

   

                             

             

	 	 	

                                   

                 

                       

                   

                       

                           

             

                                   

                                

                                     

                           

                             

                                    

                               

                   

                         

                             

                       

                         

                         

               

                                  

                               

             

                                                            

                       

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

efficiently and at higherspeeds between the Milwaukee Intermodal Station and Cut‐Off, a railroad control

point 1.8 miles west of the station.

3.7 Noise and Vibration

This section will be updated for FRA during the draft EA comment period for noise and vibration receptors

along the corridor and specific project areas where applicable.

Noise assessments of high speed intercity passenger railroad operations are performed following the

assessment methodology described in the FRA guidance document, High Speed Ground Transportation

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA guidance manual) and the Federal Transit Administration’s

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA guidance manual). This section describes the

methodology as applied to the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor.

3.7.1 Noise Assessment

3.7.1.1 Noise Impact Criteria 

Noise impact for this proposed project was based on the criteria defined both in the FRA guidance manual

and the FTA guidance manual.37 While most of the impact criteria and analysis approaches are identical

in the FRA and FTA guidance manuals, this Program will primarily make use of the FTA manual and its

models and algorithms because the FTA guidance applies to train speeds below 90 MPH.

The FRA and FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well‐documented research on community reaction

to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although higher train noise

levels are allowed in neighborhoods with high levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noise

exposure are allowed with increasing levels of existing noise.

The Noise Impact Criteria group noise‐sensitive land uses into the following three categories:

 Category 1: Tracks of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose.

 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences,

hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance.

 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category

includes schools, libraries, churches and certain parks.

Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise sensitive land

uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum 1‐hour Leq

during the facility’s operating period is used.

37 U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA Report FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐

06, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2006.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐33
   

   

       

   

   

                                  

     

                            

                         

                           

                           

       

                             

                               

                         

                             

                           

                       

               

       

                                     

             

               

                             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

There are three levels of impact included in the criteria. The interpretation of these three levels of impact

is summarized below:

	 Severe Impact: Program‐generated noise in the severe impact range can be expected to cause a

significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise. Proposed Program‐

generated noise in the severe impact range represents the most compelling need for mitigation.

Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there are truly

extenuating circumstances that prevent it.

	 Moderate Impact: In this range of noise impact, the change in the cumulative noise level is

noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the

community. In this range of noise impact, other proposed Program‐specific factors must be

considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other

factors can include the proposed projected increase over existing noise levels, the types and

number of noise‐sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor‐indoor sound insulation, and the

cost effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels.

	 No Impact: Existing noise exposure.

Figure 3‐20 expresses the criteria in terms of the increase in total or cumulative noise that can occur in

the overall noise environment before impact occurs.

Figure 3‐20

Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure Allowed by FTA/FRA Criteria

3.7.1.2 Noise Prediction Model 

The FTA and FRA general noise assessment procedure determines the potential for noise impact by

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐34
   

   

       

   

   

                               

                               

                           

                                   

      

                             

                                

               

                               

                           

                                       

                                       

                                     

                            

                               

                       

                                 

                               

                             

                             

                                  

           

                           

                                   

                                 

                         

                               

                                  

                         

                                   

                                

                                        

                       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

applying basic modelsto estimate existing noise and proposed project noise from train activities, and then

comparing the results with the FTA and FRA noise impact criteria. The general assessment procedure is

used for proposed projects in preliminary stages of planning, for comparing alternatives, and for

estimating the potential for noise impact on a corridor study without the level of detail associated with a

full environmental impact analysis.

A general assessment is considered the appropriate level of detail for estimating the noise effects

associated with the proposed project. The general noise assessment is a conservative approach, and if no

impact is projected, no further analysis is required.

The general noise assessment procedure starts with the noise source levels for the existing and future

train consists and incorporates the operating conditions to determine noise exposure at a reference

distance of 50 feet from the tracks. Noise levels can be compared at the reference distance to see if there

is a large change from existing to future noise levels as a result of the proposed project. Although 50 feet

is generally closer to the existing tracks than the location of any residences, this distance is used for a

reference because effects of ground and weather are minimal on the source noise level.

To assess impact at distances where people live, however, the noise exposure must be estimated at

various distances other than the reference distance. Standard propagation characteristics are used to

estimate the way noise spreads out from the right‐of‐way. The results of this procedure are expressed in

terms of estimated noise exposure within the study area for both existing and future cases.

3.7.1.3 Noise Source Reference Levels 

In addition to Amtrak service, freight trains operate throughout much of the proposed project corridor

north of A‐20 (Northbrook, IL), and Metra commuter rail service operates between Chicago Union Station

and Rondout (Lake Forest, IL). This section describes the source reference levels used to model all types

of service present in the corridor.

Noise impact assessments divide high speed rail operations into three “regimes” based on operating

speeds. In Regime I, at low speeds, propulsion or machinery noise is the major noise source, while at

higher speeds in Regime II, wheel‐rail interactions become the primary noise source. In Regime III, at the

highest speeds, typically above 160 MPH, aerodynamic noise is dominant. Because the maximum

operating speedsfor passengertrainsin this assessment (79 MPH) fall within Regime II, precise locomotive

source reference levels are not critical, as the wheel‐rail noise dominates. In addition, at this level of

detail, the differences between different types of locomotives and cars are not large.

Noise source levels and other information for the FRA noise model from these trains are shown in Figure

3‐21. The source reference levels in Figure 3‐21 are used to determine reference sound exposure levels

(SELs) for each of the train consists using equations in Chapter 4 of the FRA guidance manual. The SEL is

the fundamental building block for calculating noise exposure. For the purposes of this corridor‐wide

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐35
   

   

       

   

   

                             

         

           

   

       

       

                               

                             

                             

                                 

                               

                                     

                                   

                           

                           

                          

                               

                           

                         

                                      

                                   

  

                             

                             

                                                            

                           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

assessment, the same source reference levels were assumed for the three different types of trains:

Amtrak, freight, and Metra commuter rail.

Figure 3‐21

Source Reference Levels for Train Noise Model

Noise Source

Noise Source Reference Quantities

Distance

(ft) Speed (MPH) SEL (dB(A))

Locomotive 50 50 92

Rail Car 50 50 82

3.7.1.4 Sound Propagation Characteristics 

Noise exposure at distances beyond the 50‐footreference distance was estimated by using a generic curve

of noise exposure as a function of distance, including soft‐ground absorption, but ignoring any shielding

by terrain features or buildings. This method resultsin a conservative estimation of the noise environment

in urban and suburban areas, but is adequate in comparing existing and future conditions when the only

change in noise source is because of the rail corridor. With the foregoing simplifications, noise exposure

from trains was assumed to propagate as a line source with ground absorption, that is, a reduction of 4.5

dB per distance doubling. Based on these assumptions, train noise at the land uses present in this study

area typically would dominate within about 200 feet on either side of the tracks.

3.7.2 Vibration Assessment

3.7.2.1 Vibration Impact Criteria 

The FTA guidance manual provides vibration impact criteria for general assessments in areas that

currently experience vibration, including areasthat experience vibration from an existing rail corridor. For

heavily‐used rail corridors(more than 12 trains per day), if the existing train vibration exceedsthe ground‐

borne vibration impact criteria, the proposed project would cause additional impact if the proposed

project significantly increases the number of vibration events. Approximately doubling the number of

eventsisrequired for a significant increase. If there is not a large increase in vibration events, there would

be additional impact only if the proposed project vibration would be more than 3 VdB higher than existing

vibration.38

3.7.3 Affected Environment

This section describes existing conditions within the Project Study Area. For the evaluation, the Project

Study Area was subdivided into smaller segments based on similarities in train operations within those

38 Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, May 2006, p. 8‐5.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐36
   

   

       

   

   

                        

                 

                                   

                              

                               

     

                         

                           

                                  

                                            

                               

                 

                                         

                              

                                        

                               

   

                           

                                 

                                      

        

             

                                       

                                  

                            

                                    

                         

                             

                                  

                                      

                                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

portions of the proposed project area. Each of these is described below.

Chicago Union Station to Healy Metra Station (Chicago, IL)

From Union Station to Randolph Street the alignment is in tunnel. North of Randolph Street to the

Western Avenue Metra Station (Chicago, IL), the land use is primarily dense commercial and industrial.

North of the Western Avenue Metra Station, the land use is primarily commercial and industrial with

scattered residential areas.

In addition to the existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service, the Amtrak Empire Builder and Metra’s Milwaukee

District West (MD‐W), Milwaukee District North (MD‐N), and North Central Service (NCS) share this

portion of the corridor. The Empire Builder consists of one round trip per day, with 2 locomotives and 11

cars. The MD‐W has 58 total trains per day, the MD‐N has 61 total trains per day, and the NCS has 21

total trains per day. Metra trains typically consist of one locomotive and six cars.

Healy Metra Station (Chicago, IL) to A‐20 (Northbrook, IL)

From the Healy Metra Station to the Forest Glen Metra Station (Chicago, IL) the land use is a mix of dense

commercial, industrial and residential. From the Forest Glen Metra Station north to the Glenview Metra

Station (Glenview, IL), the land use is still mixed, but less dense than to the south. North of the Glenview

Metra Station to Techny Road near A‐20 (Northbrook, IL), the land use is primarily commercial and

industrial.

In addition to the existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service, the Amtrak Empire Builder, and Metra MD‐N Line

share this portion of the corridor. The Empire Builder consists of one round trip per day, with 2

locomotives and 11 cars. The MD‐N Line has 61 total trains per day; with typical consists of one locomotive

and six cars.

A‐20 (Northbrook, IL) to Rondout (Lake Forest, IL)

From Techny Road to Lake Cook Road (Deerfield, IL), the land use is a mix of light commercial and industrial

with some medium to low density residential communities. North of Lake Cook Road, the land use is

mostly commercial, with some residential land use near Osterman Avenue (Deerfield, IL). From Osterman

Avenue to Half Day Road (Bannockburn, IL), the land use is primarily commercial. North of Half Day Road,

the land use is a mix of low density residential and undeveloped land.

In addition to the existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service, the Amtrak Empire Builder, MD‐N Line, and CP freight

trains share this portion of the corridor. The Empire Builder consists of one round trip per day, with 2

locomotives and 11 cars. The MD‐N Line has 61 total trains per day; with typical consists of one locomotive

and six cars. There are also 17 daily total freight train operations on the segment with average consists

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐37
   

   

       

   

   

             

                 

                                     

                                

                            

                                 

                             

                                  

                                  

             

                

                             

                 

                             

                                  

                                    

           

	 	

                           

                    

                                 

                                      

                               

                                  

                                 

                                                            

                                      

                   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

of 2 powered locomotives and 97 cars.39

Rondout (Lake Forest, IL) to Washington Street (Milwaukee, WI)

From Rockland Road to Grand Avenue (Gurnee, IL), the land use is a mix of low density residential and

commercial. North of Grand Avenue to Oakwood Road south of Milwaukee, the land use is primarily low‐

density residential and farms, fields, or undeveloped land. There is some residential land use between

Oakwood Road and Drexel Road. North of Drexel Road, the land use is primarily commercial and

industrial.

In addition to the existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service, the Amtrak Empire Builder and CP freight trainsshare

this portion of the corridor. The Empire Builder consists of one round trip per day, with 2 locomotives and

11 cars. There are also 17 daily total freight train operations on the segment with average train consists

of 2 powered locomotives and 97 cars.

Washington Street (Milwaukee, WI) to Milwaukee Intermodal Station

The land use from Washington Street (Milwaukee, WI) to the Milwaukee Intermodal Station is commercial

and industrial with a few residentially occupied warehouse‐type buildings.

In addition to the existing Amtrak Hiawatha Service, the Amtrak Empire Builder and CP freight trainsshare

this portion of the corridor. The Empire Builder consists of one round trip per day, with 2 locomotives and

11 cars. There are also 17 daily total freight train operations on this segment with average consists of 2

powered locomotives and 97 cars.

3.7.4 Potential Impacts

3.7.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

This analysis assumesthat train‐induced noise and ground‐borne vibration does not change under the No‐

Build Alternative. Therefore, no new noise impacts are projected to occur.

3.7.4.2 Build Alternative 

The proposed project consists of an increase in the number of Amtrak Hiawatha Service trains from 7

round trips to 10 round trips per day, with no change in maximum speed. The proposed train consist is

assumed to include one powered locomotive and seven passenger cars (the same as the existing Amtrak

Hiawatha trains). No changes to the freight or commuter rail service were assumed as a part of this

proposed project. The maximum speed of Metra trains was assumed to be 79 MPH. The maximum speed

39 Freight data was provided by Canadian Pacific as part of their August 2013 RTC modeling effort. Consist lengths

were averaged from a week‐long operating schedule in June 2013.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐38
   

   

       

   

   

                                   

   

                               

                               

                           

                               

                       

                               

                               

         

                                 

       

                 

                                 

                                    

                                 

                                      

           

                 

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                  

                   

             

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                  

                   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

of freight trains was assumed to be 40 MPH between A‐20 and Rondout and 50 MPH between Rondout

and Milwaukee.

This section provides the findings for both the noise and vibration assessments for the Build Alternative.

The findings are presented according to the same segments of the corridor described above for existing

conditions. This evaluation has identified general areas where noise and vibration impacts would be

expected. A more detailed evaluation would be required to identify impacts at specific locations and to

quantify the number of properties that may experience noise or vibration impacts.

3.7.4.2.1 Noise Impacts due to Increase in Service 

Using the methodology described above, the existing and future Ldns were computed at a range of

distances from the existing tracks. Noise impacts can occur only where future noise levels are expected

to exceed existing noise levels.

The distances to noise impact from horns at grade crossings would be identical to those for operational

noise discussed below.

Chicago Union Station to Healy Metra Station (Chicago, IL)

In this section of the alignment, the effects of the increase in Amtrak operations would be minimal

because of the presence of high volumes of Metra commuter rail trains. The increase in noise because of

the additional trains is expected to cause moderate noise impacts at distances of up to approximately 25

feet from the centerline of the corridor. This distance is within the width of the right‐of‐way, and no noise

impacts to adjacent properties are expected.

Healy Metra Station (Chicago, IL) to A‐20 (Northbrook, IL)

In this section of the alignment, the effects of the increase in Amtrak operations would be minimal

because of the presence of existing freight trains and Metra commuter trains. The increase in noise

because of the additional trains is expected to cause moderate noise impacts at distances of up to

approximately 25 feet from the centerline of the corridor. This distance is within the width of the right‐

of‐way, and no noise impacts to adjacent properties are expected.

A‐20 (Northbrook, IL) to Rondout (Lake Forest, IL)

In this section of the alignment, the effects of the increase in Amtrak operations would be minimal

because of the presence of existing freight trains and Metra commuter trains. The increase in noise

because of the additional trains is expected to cause moderate noise impacts at distances of up to

approximately 25 feet from the centerline of the corridor. This distance is within the width of the right‐

of‐way, and no noise impacts to adjacent properties are expected.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐39
   

   

       

   

   

                 

                                 

                                  

                                   

                                    

       

                

                                     

                                  

                                   

                                 

     

                               

                           

                           

                             

                       

                     

                             

                                 

                         

                     

                       

                         

                               

                           

                               

                             

                             

                             

                   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Rondout (Lake Forest, IL) to Washington Street (Milwaukee, WI)

In this section of the alignment, the effects of the increase in Amtrak operations would be minimal

because of the presence of existing freight trains. The increase in noise because of the additional trains

is expected to cause some moderate noise impacts at distances of up to approximately 25 feet from the

centerline of the corridor. This distance is within the width of the right‐of‐way, and no noise impacts to

adjacent properties are expected.

Washington Street (Milwaukee, WI) to Milwaukee Intermodal Station

In this section of the route, the effects of the increase in Amtrak operations would be minimal because of

the presence of existing freight trains. The increase in noise because of the additional trains is expected

to cause some moderate noise impacts at distances of up to approximately 25 feet from the centerline of

the corridor. This distance is within the width of the right‐of‐way, and no noise impacts to adjacent

properties are expected.

3.7.4.2.2 Vibration Impacts due to Increase in Frequencies 

The potential for impact due to vibration was assessed in accordance with the criteria discussed above.

The FTA guidance manual provides vibration impact criteria for general assessments in areas that

currently experience vibration, including areas that experience vibration from an existing rail corridor. For

heavily‐used rail corridors (more than 12 trains per day), the proposed project would cause additional

impact if the proposed project largely significantly the number of vibration events. Approximately

doubling the number of events is required for a significant increase.

Because of the large volume of freight and commuter rail activity throughout the proposed project

corridor, the proposed project would not double the number of vibration events at any location along the

corridor. Therefore, according to the FTA criteria described above, no proposed project‐related vibration

impacts to adjacent properties are expected to occur on the corridor.

3.7.4.2.3 Noise and Vibration Impacts due to Construction of Improvement Projects 

Ten improvement projects are proposed to be constructed to accommodate the increase in Hiawatha

Service frequencies. The construction of the proposed projects could result in temporary noise and

vibration increases within and adjacent to the project area. The noise and vibration would be generated

primarily from trucks and heavy machinery used during construction. Any anticipated noise and vibration

impacts likely would be confined to normal working hours, which are generally considered to be “noise

and vibration tolerant” periods. Construction contractors need to be aware of local noise ordinances to

assure compliance with Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois and Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties

in Wisconsin and within the cities that construction activities occur. No adverse noise and vibration

impacts are anticipated during the construction phase of the project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐40
   

   

       

   

   

                              

                                 

                                  

   

      

                                 

                     

                                

                                  

             

               

                               

                          

                                   

                                    

       

                                 

                                 

                                  

                                    

                                        

                                     

   

                               

                                        

                                 

                                           

                                   

                                   

                                     

           

               

                               

                          

                                   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Noise and vibration impacts due to the projectsthemselves are discussed further below. Generally, within

100 feet of the noise‐generating point of switch of the crossover, impacts to noise and vibration sensitive

receptors would be severe. Impactsto sensitive receptors would be moderate within 200 feet of the point

of switch.

Glenview Universal Crossover

Two crossovers are proposed to be constructed in Glenview, IL in an area of mixed commercial and

institutional (Glenview United Methodist Church) land uses and nearby single‐family and multi‐family

residences. Several residences are located more than 100 feet but less than 200 feet from the noise‐

generating point of switch on the crossovers. Noise and vibration impacts between 100 and 200 feet of

the points of switch would be moderate.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1

A‐20 Design Alternative 1 is proposed to be constructed in an area of mixed commercial/industrial land

use and nearby single‐family and multi‐family residences. Several residences on Longmeadow Drive are

located more than 100 feet but less than 200 feet from the noise‐generating point of switch on the

crossover at West Lake Avenue. Noise and vibration impacts between 100 and 200 feet of the point of

switch would be moderate.

The noise analysis indicated that there is potential for noise impact from locomotives idling on the new

track; however, based on information provided by UP and CP, engine idling noise occurs today in various

locationsincluding near West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road on the UP. In the proposed condition, idling

noise would also occur near West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road on the UP. This assumes that engines

are located at the head of each train. Because there is no proposed increase in train traffic and the idling

noise would occur at the same locations, there would be no net change in idling noise level for the

proposed condition.

In existing conditions, UP and CP freights generate moving train noise between West Lake Avenue and

Shermer Road on the UP and north of Shermer Road on the CP. In the proposed condition, UP and CP

freights would also generate moving train noise between West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road on the UP

and north of Shermer Road on the CP, but trains using the new track would be moving on track that is 14’

closer to the neighborhood on the west side of the UP between West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road

than in existing conditions; however, these trains would not be traveling at full throttle, asthe trains would

be slowing to a stopped position at West Lake Avenue or Techny Road and would not present a severe

impact on the adjacent surroundings.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 2

A‐20 Design Alternative 2 is proposed to be constructed in an area of mixed commercial/industrial land

use and nearby single‐family and multi‐family residences. Several residences on Longmeadow Drive are

located more than 100 feet but less than 200 feet from the noise‐generating point of switch on the

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐41
   

   

       

   

   

                                    

       

                                 

                                 

                                  

                                  

                                        

                                     

                               

                                        

                                 

                                       

                                    

             

           

                                     

                          

                                         

                 

                                   

                                

                               

                                   

                               

                                   

                          

                                    

                                 

   

     

                                 

                          

                             

                                  

                           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

crossover at West Lake Avenue. Noise and vibration impacts between 100 and 200 feet of the point of

switch would be moderate.

The noise analysis indicated that there is potential for noise impact from locomotives idling on the new

track; however, based on information provided by UP and CP, engine idling noise occurs today in various

locationsincluding near West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road on the UP. In the proposed condition, idling

noise would also occur near West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road. This assumes that engines are located

at the head of each train. Because there is no proposed increase in train traffic and the idling noise would

occur at the same locations, there would be no net change in idling noise level for the proposed condition.

In existing conditions, UP and CP freights generate moving train noise between West Lake Avenue and

Shermer Road on the UP and north of Shermer Road on the CP. In the proposed condition, UP and CP

freights would also generate moving train noise between West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road on the UP

and north of Shermer Road on the CP and would be the same distance to the neighborhood on the west

side of the UP between West Lake Avenue and Shermer Road as in existing conditions. There would be

no net change in moving train noise.

Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

The speed increase would occur over a 12 mile section between A‐20 and Rondout in an area of mixed

commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential land uses. Increasing freight train speeds from 40

MPH to 50 MPH in this area has the potential to increase future noise levels by an additional 1 dB above

the increases due to the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies.

The proposed speed increase has the potential to cause moderate noise impacts to a distance of 105 feet

from the centerline of the corridor. Thisimpact distance includessome firstrow sensitive receptors(noise

sensitive receptors that abut the corridor that do not have any intervening building rows between them

and the rail corridor) along the 12 miles of track including receptors in Northbrook on Tudor Lane, Oak

Avenue, Anets Drive, Meadow Road, and Fair Lane; in Deerfield on South Commons Court, Robert York

Avenue, Elm Street, Park Avenue, and Chestnut Street; and in Lake Forest on Old Mill Road, Pine Oaks

Circle, Leland Court, Abington Cambs Drive, Cornell Court, Harvard Court and Marquette Court. Severe

noise impact is predicted at distances of up to approximately 20 feet from the centerline of the corridor.

This distance is within the width of the right‐of‐way, and no severe noise impacts to sensitive receptors

are anticipated.

Deerfield Holding Track

The Deerfield holding track is proposed to be constructed in an area of mixed commercial and institutional

(North Shore Chinese Christian Church) land uses and nearby single‐family and multi‐family residences.

Several residences Greenwood Court, Chestnut Avenue, and Chapel Court are located more than 100 feet

but less than 200 feet from the noise‐generating point of switches on both turnouts. Noise and vibration

impacts between 100 and 200 feet of the point of switch would be moderate.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐42
   

   

       

   

   

       

                               

                           

                                   

                                    

       

     

                                   

                            

                                       

                

                                 

                                      

                         

         

                             

                                         

                          

                             

                                       

                            

                                       

                                  

                                      

                                  

                                 

                                   

                                 

       

           

                                

         

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Lake Forest Universal Crossover

Two crossovers are proposed to be constructed in an area of largely undeveloped land with nearby single‐

family residences. Several residences on Conway Road, Pine Oaks Circle, Leland Court, and Abington

Cambs Drive are located more than 100 feet but less than 200 feet from the noise‐generating points of

switch on the two crossovers. Noise and vibration impacts between 100 and 200 feet of the points of

switch would be moderate.

Rondout Siding Extension

As part of the Rondout Siding Extension project, a turnout is proposed to be constructed just north of

Illinois Route 60 in an area of largely undeveloped land with several nearby single‐family residences. The

point of switch on the turnout to the new track is located more than 300 feet from the residences on

Faculty Circle, and would not impact the residences.

The noise analysis indicated that there is potential for noise impact from locomotives idling on the new

track. Because the locomotive end of the trains would idle at a location more than 400 feet from the

residences on Faculty Circle, the new idling noise would not impact the residences.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

The Metra Fox Lake Second Track project proposes the installation of numerous crossovers and turnouts

in the area of Illinois Route 176 in Fox Lake, IL in an area of industrial and undeveloped land uses and

nearby single‐family and multi‐family residences. The points of switches on the turnouts and crossovers

are located more than 300 feet from the residences, and would not impact the residences.

A turnout is proposed to be constructed along the Fox Lake Line portion of the project, just east of the

railroad’s at‐grade intersection with St. Mary’s Road, adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The point of

switch on the turnout is located more than 100 feet but less than 200 feet from one residence on Minard

Lane. Additional residences on Minard Lane and Thornbury Lane are located more than 200 feet from the

point of switch. Noise and vibration impacts between 100 and 200 feet of the point of switch would be

moderate. At distances from the point of switch over 200 feet, there would be no impact.

The noise analysis also indicated that there is potential for noise impact from locomotives idling on the

new track within 400 feet of the residences on Minard Lane and Thornbury Lane; however, due to the

number of existing freight trains that currently operate in the corridor, noise impacts due to the idling

trains would be moderate.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

There are no changesto the noise or vibration environment caused by adding a passenger platform. There

is no potential for impact.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐43
   

   

       

   

   

   

                                   

     

           

                               

              

		

                           

                           

                         

                      

                                 

                           

                           

                                   

                             

                         

                             

                                 

                             

                                

                           

                          

                

         

                       

                             

                             

                             

                             

                         

                                                            

         

                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Muskego Yard Signalization

There are no noise or vibration sensitive receptors located near the yard and therefore there are no noise

or vibration impacts.

Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off CTC Installation

There are no changes to the noise or vibration environment caused by upgrading signals and installing

CTC. There is no potential for impact.

3.8 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires individual states to develop, update and maintain State Implementation

Plans (SIPs) that will demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Common features of a SIP include attainment timeframes or milestones, area‐wide emissions inventories

and budgets and control and mitigation strategies that will be employed.

The proposed Program lies within a five county area spanning over two states (i.e., Illinois and Wisconsin).

Milwaukee, Racine, and portions of Kenosha Counties in Wisconsin are designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be maintenance areas for particulate matter with a diameter

of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). Other portions of Kenosha County in Wisconsin and Cook and Lake Counties

in Illinois are designated to be nonattainment for the 8‐hour ozone standard. Because the proposed

Program will require input and/or approval of the federal government (i.e., Federal Railroad

Administration [FRA]) the General Conformity requirements of the CAA are applicable. Section 176 (c) of

the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7506(c))40 requires any entity of the federal government that engages in, supports, or

in any way provides financial support for, licenses or permits, or approves any activity, to demonstrate

that the action conforms to the applicable SIP before the action is otherwise approved. Therefore, the

proposed Program’s operational emissions were compared to the de minimis levels outlined in the CAA’s

General Conformity regulations (40 CFR Part 93)41. When Program‐related emissions are greater than the

de minimis levels, a General Conformity Determination is required.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

This section describes existing air quality conditions including applicable regulations, attainment status,

and provides available ambient air quality monitoring data in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.

Pursuant to the requirements of the CAA, the EPA establishes, enforces, and periodically reviews the

NAAQS. The NAAQS are set to safeguard public health and environmental welfare against the detrimental

effects of outdoor air pollution and are defined as primary and/or secondary standards. Primary NAAQS

are health‐based standards geared toward protecting sensitive or at‐risk portions of the population such

40 Clean Air Act Section 176(c)
 41 40 CFR Part 93 ‐ Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans,
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐44
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                         

                              

                           

                                   

                           

       

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary NAAQS are welfare‐oriented and are designed to

prevent decreased visibility and damage to animals, vegetation, and physical structures. NAAQS have

been established for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO);

lead (Pb); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); ozone (O3); particulate matter (PM), which includes particulate matter

with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) and PM2.5; and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are precursors to ozone formation. The NAAQS are

summarized in Figure 3‐22.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐45
   

   

       

   

   

   

       

         

   

                     

         

         

             

   

   

   

         

         

         

   

                 

                                     

                             

                                       

                                         

                                 

                     

                       

                                           

           

                           

   

                                 

                                  

                                       

                             

                                 

          

                         

         

                             

                             

                       

                                       

                                     

                               

                      

   

                             

                               

                             

                               

                           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐22

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level

Carbon Monoxide (CO)a Primary 8‐hour 9 ppm

1‐hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb)b Primary and Secondary Rolling 3 month average 0.15 μg/m3

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

c Primary 1‐hour 100 ppb

Primary and Secondary Annual 53 ppbd

Ozone (O3)

e Primary and Secondary 8‐hour 0.075 ppmf

Particulate Matter

PM2.5g

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3

Primary and Secondary 24‐hour 35 μg/m3

PM10h Primary and Secondary 24‐hour 150 μg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

i Primary 1‐hour 75 ppbj

Secondary 3‐hour 0.5 ppm

Source: EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2014, http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
 

Notes: ppb = parts per billion, ppm = parts per million, and μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air.
 a CO 1‐hour and 8‐hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year.
 b Lead rolling three month average standard not to be exceeded. Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead
 

standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008
 

standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in effect until
 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
 c NO2 1‐hour standard represents the 98th percentile, averaged over three years.
 d The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is presented for the purpose of
 

clearer comparison to the 1‐hour standard.
 e Ozone 8‐hour standard represents the annual fourth‐highest daily maximum 8‐hr concentration, averaged over
 

three years.
 f Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth‐highest daily maximum 8‐hour
 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the
 

1‐hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas
 

have continued obligations under thatstandard (“anti‐backsliding”). The 1‐hour ozone standard is attained when the
 

expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less
 

than or equal to 1.
 g PM2.5 annual standards represent annual mean, averaged over three years. PM2.5 24‐hour standard represents 98th
 

percentile, averaged over three years.
 h PM10 24‐hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years.
 i

SO2 1‐hourstandard represents 99th percentile of 1‐hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged overthree years.
 

SO2 3‐hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year.
 j

Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24‐hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking;
 

however, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except
 

in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until
 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.
 

Attainment/Nonattainment Status

The EPA designates areas as either meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the NAAQS. An

area with measured pollutant concentrations that are lessthan the NAAQS is designated as an attainment

area and an area with pollutant concentrations that exceed the NAAQS is designated as a nonattainment

area. Areas that are in transition back to attainment are designated as maintenance areas. Ozone

nonattainment areas are further classified as extreme, severe, moderate, or marginal. An area is

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐46
   

   

       

   

   

                                   

  

                                 

                                       

                               

                

   

                             

                                   

                             

                    

                           

                           

                                 

                             

           

         

                           

                           

       

                                     

                           

                               

                             

            

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

designated as unclassifiable when there is a lack of sufficient data to form the basis of an attainment

status determination.

The CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary

NAAQS in all areas of the country and to develop a specific plan to attain the standards for each area

designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. These plans, known as SIPs, are developed by state and local air

quality management agencies and submitted to EPA for approval.

General Conformity Requirements

The General Conformity Rule of the federal CAA prohibits federal agencies from permitting or funding

projects that do not conform to an applicable SIP. The General Conformity Rule applies only to areas that

are in nonattainment or within a maintenance status. Under the Rule, project‐related emissions of the

applicable nonattainment/maintenance pollutants are compared to de minimis level thresholds. If the

emissions exceed the thresholds, a formal Conformity Determination is required to demonstrate that the

action conforms to the applicable SIP. Conversely, if Program‐related emissions are less than the de

minimis levels the project is assumed to conform to the SIP. As previously stated, the Program would

require input and is anticipated to receive financial assistance from the FRA; therefore, the General

Conformity requirements of the CAA are applicable.

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

EPA and local state agencies maintain air quality monitoring stations throughout the U.S. These

monitoring stations measure concentrations of pollutants in the ambient (i.e., outdoor) air to gauge

compliance with the NAAQS.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

As previously stated, the Program is located within a five county area within two states for which two of

the counties (Milwaukee and Racine Counties in Wisconsin) are designated by the EPA as maintenance

areas for PM2.5 and the other three counties (Kenosha County in Wisconsin and Cook and Lake Counties

in Illinois) are designated as nonattainment for the 8‐hour ozone standard. Figure 3‐23 presents the EPA‐

designated nonattainment status for the five counties.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐47
   

   

       

   

   

   

       

               

            

                

           

           

       

                                       

                                     

                                             

             

                               

       

       

         

     

     

         

         

                                 

                               

                                   

                           

                                   

                   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐23

EPA Designated Nonattainment Status

County, State Pollutant Area Name/State Classification County NA

Part/Whole?a

Kenosha County, WI 8‐Hr Ozone (2008) Chicago‐Naperville, IL‐IN‐WI Marginal Partial

Milwaukee County, WI PM2.5 (2006) Milwaukee‐Racine, WI Maintenance Whole

Racine County, WI PM2.5 (2006) Milwaukee‐Racine, WI Maintenance Whole

Cook County, IL 8‐Hr Ozone (2008) Chicago‐Naperville,

IL‐IN‐WI Marginal Whole

Lake County, IL 8‐Hr Ozone (2008) Chicago‐Naperville,

IL‐IN‐WI Marginal Whole

Source: EPA Green Book, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ a The column "County NA Part/Whole" indicates whether only a part of the county or the whole county is designated

nonattainment.

b These designations are only for a specific part of Cook County which do not include the rail line corridor. c Consist of the area bounded by Damen Avenue on the west, Roosevelt Road on the north, the Dan Ryan Expressway on the

east, and the Stevenson Expressway on the south.

The General Conformity de minimis levels for the Program Study Area are presented by County in Figure

3‐24.

Figure 3‐24

General Conformity de minimis Thresholds

County, State Pollutant Area Type de minimis Level

(tons/year)

Kenosha County, WI Ozone (NOx) Marginal 100

Milwaukee County, WI PM2.5 Maintenance 100

Racine County, WI PM2.5 Maintenance 100

Cook County, IL Ozone (NOx) Marginal 100

Lake County, IL Ozone (NOx) Marginal 100

Figure 3‐25 presents air quality monitoring data collected by state and local air quality control agencies in

Cook County and Milwaukee County for the six criteria pollutants between 2011 and 2013. As shown, the

concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are much less than the NAAQS for all three years for both

counties and showing overall a decreasing trend. Additionally, ozone concentrations are less than the

NAAQS in Cook County for all three years but show an exceedance in 2012 in Milwaukee County, which

was at or less than the NAAQS in 2011 and 2013.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐48
   

   

       

   

   

       

             

           

             

         

             

           

             

           

   

   

         

         

         

           

           

       

                     

       

                                    

                                       

                   

             

     

                      

                       

                             

             

                             

                              

	 	

                                 

                               

                              

                           

                        

                                                            

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐25

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

County Monitoring Station Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS 2011 2012 2013

Cooka

Northbrook Water

Plant CO 1‐hourb 35 ppm 1.7 1.1 1.5

8‐hourb 9 ppm 1.3 0.8 0.7

CTA Building NO2

1‐hourc 100 ppb 71.7 67.0 64.3

Annuald 53 ppb 21.4 22.1 20.6

Cook County Trailer O3 8‐houre 0.075 ppm 0.069 0.074 0.073

Village Hall PM10 24‐hourg 150 μg/m3 77.0 70.3 72.0

Milwaukee

Horicon Wildlife

Area COj 1‐hourb 35 ppm 3.5 0.7 8.3

8‐hourb 9 ppm 0.8 0.5 1.3

DNR SER

Headquarters Site

NO2

1‐hourc 100 ppb 52.3i 45.1i 49.7

Annuald 53 ppb 11.4 11.5 10.4

O3 8‐houre 0.075 ppm 0.070i 0.089i 0.075

PM10 24‐hourg 150 μg/m3 63.0 48.0 48.0

Milwaukee Fire

Department

Headquarters

PM2.5

24‐hourc 35 μg/m3 ‐‐ 30.2i 20.7i

Annualh 12 μg/m3 ‐‐ 9.8i 9.0i

Source: EPA, AIRData – Monitor Values Reports, http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_maps.html accessed September 30,
 

2014; and NAAQS at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
 

Note: ppm = parts per million, ppb = parts per billion, and μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
 a PM2.5monitoring data is not available for Cook County for the years 2011 through 2013, thus not included in the table.
 b Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
 c 98th percentile, averaged over three years.
 d Annual mean.
 e Annual fourth‐highest daily maximum 8‐hr concentration, averaged over three years.
 f 99th percentile of 1‐hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over three years.
 g Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years.
 h Annual mean, averaged over three years.
 i These values are not averaged over three years due to lack of monitoring data.
 j There are no active CO monitors in Milwaukee County, closest is Dodge County, Wisconsin.
 

3.8.2 Potential Impacts

3.8.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not appreciably worsen air quality in the near future. Over time, air

quality may worsen due to increases in vehicular congestion on the roadways and highways in the

Program Study Area. The No‐Build Alternative would reequip the Hiawatha Service with new PRIIA 305

diesel locomotives, which emit much fewer pollutants than the current P42 locomotives used on the

Hiawatha Service.42 Air quality would improve in the No‐Build as compared to today.

42 EPA Emissions Factors for Locomotives, April 2009, https://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐49
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                                

                              

                                 

                                

                             

                              

                             

                 

                               

                               

                              

                         

   

   

             

     

     

                             

   

           

      

     

                           

                           

                                                            

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.8.2.2 Build Alternative 

An analysis was conducted to evaluate the air quality impacts that increasing Hiawatha Service

frequencies would have on the surrounding environment. Air quality impacts due to the operation of 3

additional daily round trips and due to construction of improvement projects are identified. To simplify

the analysis, no reduction in vehicle miles traveled due to the additional capacity of coaches and service

frequency is assumed. This results in a conservative estimate of emissions and air quality impacts.

3.8.2.2.1 Air Quality Impacts due to Increase in Service 

The No‐Build Alternative would employ two sets of equipment consisting of one PRIIA 305 diesel

locomotive, two Amfleet coaches, four Horizon coaches, and one F40 cab/baggage car each. The Build

Alternative would employ three sets of equipment consisting of one PRIIA 305 diesel locomotive, five

PRIIA 305 bi‐level coaches, and one cab/baggage car each.

Amtrak provided a Route and Service Evaluation titled Route & Service Financial Evaluation for Ten Daily

Round Trips on Hiawatha Service dated August 15, 2014 (Revised August 26, 2014). The report provided

operating and maintenance costs for the Hiawatha Service for the proposed 10 round trip frequency.

Figure 3‐26 presents the operational data for the No‐Build and Build Alternatives.

Figure 3‐26
 

Operational Data (FY2019)
 

Data No‐Build Alternative Build Alternative

Daily round trips 7 (6 on Sundays) 10

Annual passenger volumes 879,100 980,200

Annual passenger VMT 70,654,000 79,200,000

Figure 3‐27 presents the locomotive fuel usage in gallons for the FY2019 No‐Build and Build Alternatives.

Figure 3‐27

Locomotive Fuel Usage Data for FY2019

Data No‐Build Alternative Build Alternative

Fuel Usage (gallons) 798,898 1,122,041

Locomotive emission factors for each pollutant were obtained from the EPA guidance document entitled

Emission Factors for Locomotives43 and are presented in Figure 3‐28. Emission factors were assumed for

43 EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives, [EPA‐420‐F‐09‐025], April 2009,

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐50
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                           

   

      

       

  

                     

     

                       

                                 

  

             

                                 

                               

                             

     

   

             

         

             

  

                               

                             

                                                            

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

a line‐haul locomotive. The equipment is assumed to meet EPA’s Tier IV locomotive exhaust standards.44

The locomotive emissions were estimated by multiplying the annual fuel usage by the locomotive

emission factors.

Figure 3‐28

Locomotive Emission Factors

Pollutant Tier IV (New Equipment)

(grams/gallon)

CO 27

NOx 21

VOC 0.8

PM10 0.3

PM2.5 0.3

Source: EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Factors for Locomotives [EPA‐420‐

F‐09‐025], April 2009.
 

Notes: Emission factors are for line‐haul locomotives. A conversion factor of 20.8 horsepower‐hour
 

per gallon was assumed to express emission rates as grams of pollutant emitted per gallon of fuel
 

consumed.
 

Assumed emission factors for PM10 = PM2.5.
 

The increase in locomotive emissions for the primary pollutants of concern (i.e., CO, NOx, VOC, PM10 and

PM2.5) for the Build Alternative compared to the No‐Build Alternative in FY2019 are compared to the de

minimis levels outlined in the CAA’s General Conformity regulations. See Figure 3‐29 for annual emissions

increases in tons/year.

Figure 3‐29

Annual Emissions Increases Associated with the Build Alternative

Pollutant

Annual Emissions (tons/year) General Conformity de

minimis Applicability

No Thresholds (tons/year) ‐Build Alternative Build Alternative Projected Increases

CO 23.8 33.4 9.6 100

NOx 18.5 26.0 7.5 100

VOC 0.7 1.0 0.3 50

PM10 0.3 0.4 0.1 100

PM2.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 100

The results indicate that emissions of CO, NOx, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 would increase for the Build
 

Alternative; however, the increase in emissions of each pollutant is less than the General Conformity de
 

44 EPA, Locomotive Exhaust Emission Standards, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/locomotives.htm.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐51
   

   

       

   

   

                      

                         

                         

                                

                           

                           

                       

                              

     

                           

                              

                        

                           

                             

                          

                           

           

	 	

                                   

                            

                 

                            

                           

                               

                         

         

                           

     

                   

         

       

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

minimis applicability threshold values and a conformity determination is not required.

3.8.2.2.2 Air Quality Impact due to Construction of Improvement Projects 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short‐term increases in fugitive dust and equipment‐

related particulate emissions in and around a project area (equipment‐related particulate emissions can

be minimized if the equipment is well maintained). The potential air quality impacts would be short‐term,

occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress and local conditions are appropriate.

The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, ground clearing,

site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on‐site movement of equipment, and transportation of

materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and during

high wind conditions.

Dust and airborne dirt generated by construction activities would be controlled through dust control

procedures or a specific dust control plan, when warranted. The contractor would develop specific types

of control techniques appropriate to the specific situation. Techniques that may warrant consideration

include measuressuch as minimizing track‐out ofsoil onto nearby publicly‐traveled roads, reducing speed

on unpaved roads, covering haul vehicles, and applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed

surfaces, particularly those on which construction vehicles travel. With the application of appropriate

measures to limit dust emissions during construction, this project would not cause any significant, short‐

term particulate matter air quality impacts.

3.9 Hazardous Materials

According to the EPA, hazardous waste is “waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or

the environment”.45 Hazardous materials are regulated by the EPA and other federal agencies under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Hazardous materials

sitesinclude landfills, underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks,surface staining orstressed

vegetation, the presence of multiple drums and waste debris, solid or hazardous waste sites, spill sites,

state and federal identified environmental sites, small and large quantity generators and potential

pesticides and/or herbicides.

The following federal and state regulatory agency databases contain information on specific locations of

hazardous materials sites:

 National Priorities List (NPL) ‐ Including Proposed, Delisted and Recovery Lists

 Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

 Information System List (CERCLIS)

45 https://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/index.htm

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐52
   

   

       

   

   

               

                     

   

            

       

           

              

     

                 

             

             

                       

                     

     

                       

           

                 

         

           

                          

               

	 	

                         

                           

                                  

                             

                        

                             

                     

               

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

 CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned List (NFRAP)

 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Report (RCRA CORRACTS)

facilities list

 Federal RCRA non‐CORRACTS TSD facilities list

 Federal RCRA generators list

 Federal Brownfields & Land Revitalization Database

 Federal Emergency Response Notification System List (ERNS)

 WDNR Brownfields list

 WDNR Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS)

 WDNR Registry of Waste Disposal Sites, RR108

 WDNR List of Licensed Solid Waste Landfills

 WDNR Bureau of Remediation and Redevelopment GIS Registry for contaminated site closures

 Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) Storage Tank Database

 DSPS contaminated sites database

 Wisconsin DATCP List of Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program Spill Sites (ACCP Spills)

 IEPA Site Remediation Program Database (SRP)

 IEPA Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Tracking (LIT) Database

 IEPA Office of Brownfields Database

 IEPA Bureau of Land Inventory Database

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Hazardous material is currently transported by freight trainsthroughout the CP C&M Subdivision. Amtrak

and commuter rail do not transport hazardous materials.

3.9.2 Potential Impacts

3.9.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact hazardous materials sites in the project corridor.

3.9.2.2 Build Alternative 

Per discussions with IDOT’s Special Waste group, a Preliminary Site Environmental Assessment (PESA) for

hazardous materials sites would be conducted at the time of final design. Each Project Study Area would

be evaluated upon final design funding for hazardous materials sites based on the inventory databases

listed above. Examples of construction includes track installation, tie replacement, rail resurfacing, and

special trackwork installation all of which require a maximum of two feet of excavation during

construction and would generally not disturb contaminated sites. State requirements for hazardous

materials would be adhered to during construction.

The increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies would not impact contaminated sites.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐53
   

   

       

   

   

         

      

                              

                                    

                         

               

                             

                               

                                  

                               

   

               

                               

                               

                                  

                               

           

                         

                         

                            

   

     

                               

                                   

                                 

         

       

                                

                                  

                                 

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Specific projects are discussed below.

Glenview Universal Crossover

Two crossovers are proposed to be constructed in Glenview, IL. Construction of the crossovers would

require a maximum of 2 feet of soil excavation. Any soil excavated from the site would be distributed

within the railroad right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside the right‐of‐way.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1

The A‐20 Design Alternative 1 project consists of constructing two crossovers and three turnouts; new

track on existing roadbed, new roadbed and embankment, and on retained fill; two single track bridge

spans; and signal installation. All of the work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any

soil excavated from the site would be distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled

outside the right‐of‐way.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 2

The A‐20 Design Alternative 2 project consists of constructing two crossovers and two turnouts; new track

on existing roadbed, new roadbed and embankment, and on retained fill; two single track bridge spans;

and signal installation. All of the work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any soil

excavated from the site would be distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside

the right‐of‐way.

Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

Implementation of the speed increase would not require construction of any improvements requiring

excavation. The scope of improvements includes signal system modifications, which generally occurs

within a signal bungalow above ground. Therefore, the project would not impact hazardous materials

sites.

Deerfield Holding Track

One crossover, one turnout, and signal improvements are proposed as part of the Deerfield Holding Track

project. Construction of the crossover and turnout would require a maximum of 2 feet of soil excavation.

Any soil excavated from the site would be distributed within the railroad right‐of‐way and would not be

handled outside the right‐of‐way.

Lake Forest Universal Crossover

Two crossovers are proposed to be constructed as part of the Lake Forest Universal Crossover project.

Construction of the crossovers would require a maximum of 2 feet of soil excavation. Any soil excavated

from the site would be distributed within the railroad right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside the

right‐of‐way.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐54
   

   

       

   

   

     

                               

                                  

                               

         

                                 

                               

                                   

                            

                               

                               

                       

           

                               

                              

                                 

                              

                               

                                  

                              

   

                         

                                  

                                 

   

           

                                    

                                 

                     

	 	 	 	

                             

                                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Rondout Siding Extension

As part of the Rondout Siding Extension project, two turnouts, track on new embankment, and signal

installation are proposed. All of the work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any soil

excavated from the site would be distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside

the right‐of‐way.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

As part of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project,six turnouts,six crossovers, track on new embankment

and existing embankment, signal work, and double track bridge structure are proposed. A majority of

the work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any soil excavated from the site would be

distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside the right‐of‐way. Land acquisition

is required adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way, 0.78 acres in area, on which track on 5’ embankment

would be constructed. Excavation is not anticipated to occur in the section of purchased right‐of‐way.

There are no hazardous materials sites located in the section of purchased right‐of‐way.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

As part of the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform project, a new platform, two elevator

towers, an overhead pedestrian bridge, and track modifications are proposed. A majority of the work

would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any soil excavated from the site would be distributed

within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside the right‐of‐way. Land acquisition is required

adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way, 0.07 acres in area, on which the proposed western elevator tower

would be constructed. Excavation greater than 2 feet in depth is anticipated in the section of purchased

right‐of‐way. There are no hazardous materials sites located in the section of purchased right‐of‐way.

Muskego Yard Signalization

As part of the Muskego Yard Signalization project, seven turnouts, four crossovers, track rehabilitation,

and signal installation are proposed. All of the work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and

any soil excavated from the site would be distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled

outside the right‐of‐way.

Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off CTC Installation

As part of the Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off CTC Installation project, signal work is proposed. All of the

work would take place within the railroad right‐of‐way and any soil excavated from the site would be

distributed within the right‐of‐way and would not be handled outside the right‐of‐way.

3.10 Public Health and Safety

FRA has primary authority over railroad safety. FRA regulations govern aspects of railroad safety,

including rail operations, track, and signaling, as well as rolling stock, such as locomotives and freight cars

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐55
   

   

       

   

   

                                  

                               

                     

                                   

                                      

                               

                                    

                                    

                       

                             

                            

                              

   

     

       

     

   

   

     

     

                            

                           

                            

                         

                             

                        

                          

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

(49 CFR 200‐299). The states also have an important role in rail safety, especially at highway/rail at‐grade

crossings.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

3.10.1.1 Rail Operations Safety 

FRA’s Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213) are based on classifications of track that determine

maximum operating speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of maintenance. The Metra‐

owned portion of the route (Chicago to Rondout) is maintained to Class 5 standards to provide for good

ride quality, but passenger trains only operate at Class 4 speeds of up to 79 MPH. The CP‐owned portion

of the route (Rondout to Milwaukee) is maintained to Class 4 standards, which allows for maximum

passenger operating speeds of 79 MPH. The maximum operating speed for freights on Class 4 track is 60

MPH. At Class 5, requirements for track geometry and track structure are more stringent than for Class 4

and require to be maintained to more rigorous standards than Class 4.

3.10.1.2 Crossing Safety 

The existing alignment utilized for passenger service by the Hiawatha Service includes 4 at‐grade rail‐rail

crossings. Train movements over these at‐grade crossings are controlled by a dispatcher and conflicting

movements are safeguarded to avoid collisions. Figure 3‐30 shows the locations of the four at‐grade rail‐

rail crossings.

Figure 3‐30

At‐Grade Rail‐Rail Crossings

Milepost Corridor Railroad Crossing Railroad

2.0 CP CP Elgin Sub

8.2 CP UP Cragin

Industrial Lead

9.0 CP UP Harvard Sub

32.1 CP EJ&E Western Sub

The existing alignment also crosses roadways at‐grade throughout the corridor. FHWA and FRA have

regulatory jurisdiction over safety at crossings and USDOT has issued regulations that address grade

crossing safety. Jurisdiction over highway/rail grade crossings falls primarily to the states. In Illinois, the

Illinois Commerce Commission has regulatory jurisdiction and in Wisconsin, the Office of the

Commissioner of Railroads has jurisdiction. There are 63 public highway/rail grade crossings in the

corridor, and all have automatic warning devices. Section 3.10.2 discusses this further.

Hazardous material is currently transported by freight trainsthroughout the CP C&M Subdivision. Amtrak

and commuter rail do not transport hazardous materials.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐56
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                           

                                 

                                    

                                

                 

                               

                                

                     

                               

                                    

                                   

                                    

                                    

                                   

                                    

                           

                   

     

                           

               

                                   

                                     

                             

             

                                                            

                       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.10.2 Potential Impacts

3.10.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No‐Build Alternative, no changes to rail operations and crossing safety would occur.

3.10.2.2 Build Alternative 

Under the Build Alternative, ten round trips per day would operate between Chicago and Milwaukee at a

maximum speed of 79 MPH. Adding three additional round trips per day on existing, active rail lines would

have no appreciable negative impact on public health and safety. Specific impacts of the Build Alternative

on rail operations and crossing safety are discussed below.

3.10.2.2.1 Rail Operations Safety 

Because the maximum speed under the Build Alternative is the same as the No‐Build Alternative, track

would be maintained to the same track class as the No‐Build Alternative. Frequency of inspections and

standards of maintenance would not be impacted by the Build Alternative.

Several rail‐related accidents, including a fatal accident in 2012, occurred within the limits of the proposed

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 project at the Shermer Road Bridge on the UP Milwaukee Sub. The fatal

accident was caused by the derailment of a coal train which collapsed the Shermer Road Bridge onto a

vehicle, killing two. The derailment of a freight train occurred in 2009 at the same location, causing one

train to crash into the side of another. According to an FRA accident investigation, the probable cause of

the derailment was a “binding truck bolster which caused the train car wheels to climb over the inside

turnout closure rail leading to UP Main Track #1.”46 Both of the proposed UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternatives would remove an existing turnout in the area of the previous derailments. This

provides a reduction of risk of derailment near the bridge structure.

3.10.2.2.2 Crossing Safety 

At‐Grade Rail‐Rail Crossings

Because the maximum operating speed would not increase under the Build Alternative, no physical

improvements are required at the four rail‐rail crossings.

An additional track is proposed to be constructed at‐grade across the EJ&E just south of Rockland Road in

Lake Forest, IL as part of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project. A crossing diamond would be

constructed for the Fox Lake Subdivision’s new crossing and would include all signaling and trackwork

necessary to operate over the crossing safely.

46 FRA Office of Safety Accident Investigation Report HQ‐2009‐55, November 1, 2009

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐57
   

   

       

   

   

     

                           

                                   

                       

                               

                                    

                                     

	 	

                                 

                                

                               

                           

                           

                                

                             

                                 

                         

                                    

     

   

                                                            

       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Highway/Rail At‐Grade Crossings

Because the existing intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and freight rail volume traveling throughout

the corridor is high, the addition of three intercity passenger rail round trips per day would not appreciably

impact the risk of vehicle/train collisions at the highway/rail at‐grade crossings.

All 65 public highway/rail at‐grade crossings in the corridor are equipped with gates and flashing light

signals. Grade crossing warning devices would be replaced at Rockland Road in Lake Forest, IL due to the

construction of an additional track acrossthe roadway as part of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project.

3.11 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources include historic and pre‐historic properties that are listed or are eligible to be listed on

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, as amended requires Federal agencies to “take into account the effects of their undertakings on

historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to

comment”.47 Under Section 106, federal agencies are required to provide the public with information

about an undertaking and its effect on historic properties and to seek public comment and input.

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Figure 3‐31 summarizesthe NRHP and NRHP‐eligible resources within and adjacent to the project corridor

in Illinois. There are no eligible or listed NRHP sites located within the corridor in Wisconsin, however,

WisDOT did identify and evaluate an archaeological site adjacent to the Muskego Yard Signalization

project. The site, known as the Runner’s Village, is located between 2nd Street and 6th Street and Florida

Street and the River.

47 16 USC 470

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐58
   

   

       

   

   

                 

             

           

   

       

               

             

   

   

   

   

           

   

               

   

         

   

       

     

     

   

   

                                       

                        

	 	

                   

                             

                           

               

                               

                         

                       

                             

                               

                             

         

                          

                                   

                              

                           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐31

NRHP and NRHP‐Eligible Resources within and Adjacent to Project Corridor

Location National Register

Number Address Historic Name Distance from Rail

Right‐of‐Way

Chicago, Cook County,

Illinois

Determined

eligible for the

National Register

Canal Street between Adams

St. and Jackson Blvd. Union Station Adjacent to right‐

of‐way

Chicago, Cook County,

Illinois 04001306 211 N. Clinton Street

Chicago &

Northwestern Railway

Power House

Adjacent to right‐

of‐way

Golf, Cook County,

Illinois

Determined

eligible for the

National Register

1 Overlook Drive Train Station (Metra) Adjacent to right‐

of‐way

Deerfield, Lake

County, Illinois 98000066 860 Deerfield Rd.

Chicago, Milwaukee

and St. Paul Railway

Passenger Depot (Also

known as Deerfield

Train Station)

Adjacent to right‐

of‐way

Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are also subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of

Transportation Act. Additional information about Section 4(f) is provided in Section 3.17.

3.11.2 Potential Impacts

3.11.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would result in no historic properties affected.

3.11.2.2 Build Alternative 

In accordance with Section 106, the project team consulted with Illinois and Wisconsin State Historic

Preservation Offices (SHPO) and Native American Tribes to assess whether the Build Alternative would

result in adverse effects to historic properties.

The IDOT Bureau of Design & Environment (BDE) cultural resources staff performed a review of potential

impacts to historical, archaeological, and architectural properties, identified in Figure 3‐31 above, and

determined that the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies and construction of the improvements

necessary to accommodate the increase in service would not impact the four historic resources adjacent

to the rail right‐of‐way. The Illinois SHPO provided a letter documenting the SHPOs concurrence of the

determination by IDOT cultural resources staff of “No Historic Properties Affected”. Appendix B contains

the Illinois SHPO letter of concurrence.

WisDOT identified an archaeological site adjacent to the Muskego Yard Signalization project. The site,

known as the Runner’s Village, is located between 2nd Street and 6th Street and Florida Street and the

River. The Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) performed a review of potential impacts to the Runner’s

Village and determined that the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies and construction of the

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐59
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                               

                            

                               

                                

                                   

                                

                                 

                                  

                           

                           

                                

                            

                           

                                

             

                   

	 	 	 	 	

                                   

                              

                           

                             

               

                                 

                             

                               

                             

                                  

                         

               

                             

                           

                                                            

                   

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Muskego Yard Signalization project would not impact the archaeological site. The Wisconsin SHPO

provided a letter documenting the concurrence of the determination by WHS staff that the project would

result in no historic properties affected. Appendix C contains the Wisconsin SHPO letter of concurrence.

Consultation was in initiated with twelve Native American Tribes in Wisconsin and four Tribes in Illinois.

Two Tribes responded to this invitation to consult. The Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma responded to the Section 106 consultation letter sent by FRA on behalf of the

project. The email stated that “The Miami Tribe offers no objection to the above‐mentioned project at

thistime, as we are not currently aware of existing documentation directly linking a specific Miami cultural

or historic site to the project site. However... if any human remains or Native American cultural items

falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or archaeological evidence is

discovered... the Miami Tribe requests immediate consultation with the entity of jurisdiction for the

location of discovery”. Full consultation will be initiated with the Miami Tribe during the final design phase

of the project. Appendix D contains the correspondence with the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.

The Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation responded to the

Section 106 consultation letter as well. A copy of the Cultural Resource Survey Reports was requested

and the Illinois SHPO concurrence was provided.

No other Tribal correspondence was received by the project team.

3.12 Critical Habitat and Endangered Species

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531‐1544) is to “protect and

recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend”.48 The ESA is administered by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries

Service. The USFWS has primary responsibility for “terrestrial and freshwater organisms” and is the

agency with jurisdiction in the Program Study Area.

As defined by the ESA, “endangered” refers to species that are “in danger of extinction within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of [their] range,” while “threatened” refers to

“those animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of their ranges”. Plant species and varieties, animal species and subspecies, and

vertebrate animal populations are eligible for listing under the ESA. Critical habitat is defined as “a specific

geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered

species and that may require special management and protection.”49

As required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, FRA reviewed the USFWS list of federally endangered,

threatened, proposed, and candidate species and proposed and designated critical habitat that may be

48 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act Overview 49 Endangered Species Act of 1973

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐60
   

   

       

   

   

           

                          

                             

                           

                                  

                             

                         

                 

                        

                   

                      

                                   

                                      

                                

                               

                                         

                                  

                                 

                               

                               

                                           

     

                         

                                

                         

                           

             

   

     

     

                                                            

           

       

       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

present within the project corridor.

State regulatory agencies can grant additional protections to species. The Illinois Endangered Species

Protection Board is responsible for reviewing and revising the Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened

Species and plans and implements its Endangered Species Conservation program with the mission of

protecting “species native to Illinois which are in danger of being lost from the wild in Illinois”.50 The

Wisconsin DNR provides a similar role for the protection of endangered and threatened species in

Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, environmental corridors are “linear areas in the landscape containing concentrations of

significant natural resource and resource‐related features”. Environmental corridors link concentrated

natural resource activity through connected high value lakes, wetlands, prairies, and woodlands.

Environmental corridors are identified as either primary environmental corridors, secondary

environmental corridors, or isolated natural resource areas. Primary environmental corridors (PEC) are

“concentrations of significant natural resources at least 400 acres in area, at least two miles in length, and

at least 200 feet in width”. The corridor lies adjacent to two PECs in Pleasant Prairie, WI and Milwaukee,

WI and crosses the Root River primary environmental corridor in Oak Creek, WI.51 The Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (MBTA) “makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase,

barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird

except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations.”52 In addition, the Bald

and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior,

from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for

persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or

import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest,

or egg thereof".53

3.12.1 Affected Environment

Two Environmental Survey Requests (ESRs) were made to IDOT BDE to produce Natural Resources

Reviews (NRRs) of the Illinois‐portion of the Program Study Area. The ESRs were established as follows:

	 Sequence 19152 covered the Program Study Area from Chicago Union Station to the Illinois‐

Wisconsin state line, with the exception of the area evaluated in Sequence 19157 (described

below), and included the following improvement projects:

o	 Glenview Crossover

o	 Lake Forest Crossover

o	 Deerfield Holding Track

50 Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board 51 Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 52 16 USC 703‐712 53 16 USC 668‐668(c)

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐61
   

   

       

   

   

           

           

                         

     

          

                               

                                

                               

                                        

                               

                            

               

                               

                              

                           

                                       

                           

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

o	 UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 (both alternatives)

o	 Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

	 Sequence 19157 covered the portion of the Program Study Area for the following improvement

projects:

o	 Rondout Siding Extension

o	 Metra Fox Lake Second Track

NRRs dated April 1 and April 18, 2016 were completed for Sequence 19157 and Sequence 19152,

respectively, and are included as Appendix E. WisDOT contracted with a consultant to complete an NRR,

dated November 2015, for the Wisconsin‐portion of the Program Study Area, and is included in Appendix

F. The purpose of the NRRs was to perform a formal review of the Study Area to determine whether the

Study Area was in the vicinity of threatened and endangered species or Illinois Natural Area Inventory

sites, dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves, and registered Land and Water Reserves. BDE also evaluated

the Study Area for potential wetland impacts.

Initially, the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) review tool was used to receive an

official threatened and endangered species list for the entire Program Study Area. Twelve federally listed

endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species were identified that may be present within or

in the vicinity of the Study Area. No critical habitat was identified in the Program Study Area. Figure 3‐32

summarizes the species, their status, and identifies in which state the species are located.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐62
   

   

       

   

   

                     

      

       

   

              

      

       

       

      

          

          

     

            

   

                               

                           

                           

                                  

                                

                          

       

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐32

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species within the Program Study Area

Species Status State

Piping Plover Endangered IL

Red Knot Threatened IL

Whooping Crane

Experimental

Population,

Non‐Essential

WI

Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened IL, WI

Leafy prairie‐clover Endangered IL

Mead’s milkweed Threatened IL

Pitcher’s thistle Threatened IL

Prairie bush‐clover Threatened IL

Hine’s Emerald dragonfly Endangered IL

Karner Blue butterfly Endangered IL

Rattlesnake‐Master Borer moth Candidate IL

Northern Long‐Eared Bat Threatened IL, WI

Eastern Massasauga Proposed

Threatened IL

BDE then consulted the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (INHD) for the specific Project Study Areas and

found that the INHD contained several records of State‐listed threatened or endangered species, Illinois

Natural Area Inventory sites (INAI), dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves (NP), and registered Land and

Water Reserves in the vicinity of various Project Study Areas. BDE provided a summary of these elements

in their Natural Resources Review, included in Appendix E. Wisconsin DNR indicated that there were no

state‐listed species in the Project Study Areas. The Illinois‐listed threatened and endangered species are

shown in Figure 3‐33.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐63
   

   

       

   

   

                     

       

                   

     

                 

                     

                     

                 

                     

                 

                     

           

                   

                     

                 

                                 

                 

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐33

State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species/Critical Habitat within Project Study Areas

Species Status Location of Species Occurrence

Upland Sandpiper Endangered Observed outside the rail right‐of‐way in Glenview, IL,

but possibly extirpated

Oval Milkweed Endangered Observed in Somme Prairie INAI and NP

King Rail Endangered Last observed in 2014 in Middlefork Savanna NP

Wilson’s Phalarope Endangered Last observed in 2008 in Middlefork Savanna INAI

Golden Sedge Threatened Observed in Middlefork Savanna NP (2015 survey)

Pale Vetchling Threatened Last observed in 1995 in Middlefork Savanna INAI/NP

Marsh Speedwell Threatened Observed in Middlefork Savanna NP (2015 survey)

Eastern Prairie Fringed

Orchid Threatened

Two individual plants observed 15+ feet outside the

rail right‐of‐way in Middlefork Savanna NP (2015

survey)

Iowa Darter Threatened Observed at the North Branch Chicago River (2015

survey)

Blanding’s Turtle Endangered Last observed in 2007 in Middlefork Savanna NP

Least Bittern Threatened Observed in Middlefork Savanna NP (2015 survey)

Through IDOT BDE coordination with IDNR, the natural areas listed in Figure 3‐34 were identified as being

located in the vicinity of various Project Study Areas.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐64
   

   

       

   

   

                   

         

   

       

         

       

       

       

   

     

     

                       

     

   

   

       

         

           

           

       

   

                   

   

     

                    

     

   

     

         

         

       

   

     

         

         

       

   

       

       

   

     

     

         

         

       

   

         

                          

                           

                           

                              

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐34

Illinois Natural Areas in the Vicinity of Project Study Areas

Name Size (acres) County Project Study Areas Significant Features

Middlefork Savanna

INAI 741.5 Lake

Rondout Siding Extension, Metra

Fox Lake Second Track, Speed

Increase between A‐20 and

Rondout

High quality natural community;

Specific suitable habitat for

state‐listed species; state‐

dedicated nature preserve

Jean Farwell Woods

Land and Water

Reserve

11.19 Lake Metra Fox Lake Second Track Mesic savanna, buffer to

Middlefork Savanna NP

Middlefork Savanna

Nature Preserve 591.72 Lake

Rondout Siding Extension, Metra

Fox Lake Second Track, Speed

Increase between A‐20 and

Rondout

Mesic savanna

Morton Grove Prairie

INAI 2.06 Cook Glenview Universal Crossover

High quality natural community

and state‐dedicated nature

preserve

Wayside Prairie INAI 11.11 Cook Glenview Universal Crossover Specific suitable habitat for

state‐listed species

St. Paul Forest

Preserve INAI 180.64 Cook Glenview Universal Crossover Specific suitable habitat for

state‐listed species

Glenview Naval Air

Station INAI 32.92 Cook

Glenview Universal Crossover,

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternatives 1 and 2

Specific suitable habitat for

state‐listed species

Somme Prairie INAI 404.61 Cook

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternatives 1 and 2,

Speed Increase between A‐20

and Rondout

High quality natural community;

Specific suitable habitat for

state‐listed species; state‐

dedicated nature preserve

Somme Prairie NP 70.00 Cook

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternatives 1 and 2,

Speed Increase between A‐20

and Rondout

Variety of savannas and prairie

plans

Using IPaC, USFWS identified thirty‐three bird species that are considered Birds of Conservation Concern.

Birds of Conservation Concern are “species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds

that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.”54 Figure 3‐35 presents the Birds of Conservation Concern.

54 https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed‐species/birds‐of‐conservation‐concern.php

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐65
   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐35

Birds of Conservation Concern

Species Season

Acadian Flycatcher Breeding

American Bittern Breeding

Bald Eagle Year‐round

Bell’s Vireo Breeding

Black Tern Breeding

Black‐billed Cuckoo Breeding

Black‐crowned Night‐heron Breeding

Blue‐winged Warbler Breeding

Bobolink Breeding

Brown Thrasher Breeding

Canada Warbler Breeding

Cerulean Warbler Breeding

Common Tern Breeding

Dickcissel Breeding

Field Sparrow Breeding

Golden‐winged Warbler Breeding

Henslow’s Sparrow Breeding

Kentucky Warbler Breeding

Least Bittern Breeding

Loggerhead Shrike Breeding

Marsh Wren Breeding

Northern Flicker Year‐round

Peregrine Falcon Breeding

Pied‐billed Grebe Breeding

Prothonotary Warbler Breeding

Red‐headed Woodpecker Breeding

Rusty Blackbird Wintering

Short‐eared Owl Wintering

Upland Sandpiper Breeding

Willow Flycatcher Breeding

Wood Thrush Breeding

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐66
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

                     

                             

                                    

                       

                             

                           

                                

                               

                                

               

         

     

                                 

                                

                                 

                              

                           

                           

   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.12.2 Potential Impacts

3.12.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact critical habitat or endangered species.

3.12.2.2 Build Alternative 

3.12.2.2.1 Results of Illinois NRRs 

Illinois BDE evaluated the federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and Illinois Natural

Areas along the corridor as part of the NRR. Through field surveys, Illinois BDE determined that the service

increase and proposed improvements for the Glenview Universal Crossover, Lake Forest Universal

Crossover, Deerfield Holding Track, UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20, and Speed Increase between A‐20 and

Rondout projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally‐listed endangered

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat.

IDNR reviewed the findings of the NRR, concurred with the findings of the NRR, and provided

commitments to be adhered to in order to protect the listed species. The commitments are included as

part of Section 3.23 of the EA.

Specific projects are discussed below.

Glenview Universal Crossover

The Wayside Prairie and St. Paul’s Forest Preserve Natural Areas are located adjacent to the project near

Dempster Street. The Glenview Naval Air Station Natural Area is located near the project just south of

Willow Road. All three INAIs were cited by Illinois BDE as having occurrences of “several listed species.”

An upland sandpiper occurs adjacent to the project area near Dempster Street. Illinois BDE concluded

there would be no adverse effect by the Glenview Crossover project on the INAIs.

Figures 3‐36.1 through 3‐36.3 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to the Glenview Universal

Crossover project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐67
   

   

       

   

   

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐36.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Glenview Crossover

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐68
   

   

       

   

   

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐36.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Glenview Crossover

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐69
   

   

       

   

   

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐36.3

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Glenview Crossover

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐70
   

   

       

   

   

       

                              

                               

                                 

                             

                           

   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Lake Forest Universal Crossover

Roadside Prairie remnants occur from Old Mill Road to Everett Road. Middlefork Savanna Natural Area

and Nature Preserve is located adjacent to the project and contain “numerous listed species” starting at

Illinois Route 60. Illinois BDE concluded there would be no adverse effect by the Lake Forest Crossover

project on the Roadside Prairie remnants, the Middlefork Savanna INAI, or the Middlefork Savanna NP.

Figures 3‐37.1 through 3‐37.2 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to the Lake Forest Universal

Crossover project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐71
   

   

       

   

   

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐37.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Lake Forest Crossover

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐72
   

   

       

   

   

               

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐37.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Lake Forest Crossover

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐73
   

   

       

   

   

     

                       

                   

                                 

                                 

                              

                                      

                                 

                             

                            

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Deerfield Holding Track

There is no habitat for listed species within this Project Study Area.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternatives 1 and 2

Somme Prairie Natural Area and Nature Preserve are located adjacent to the Project Study Areasfor UPRR

Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternatives 1 and 2 north of Dundee Road and contain state‐listed oval

milkweed in variouslocations. State‐listed species with the Glenview Naval Air Station Natural Area occur

east of the project, but there is no habitat in the project area for those species. Illinois BDE concluded

there would be no adverse effect by the UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 project on the INAI.

Figures 3‐38.1 through 3‐38.2 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternative 1. Figures 3‐39.1 through 3‐39.2 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to A‐20

Design Alternative 2.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐74
   

   

       

   

   

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐38.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐75
   

   

       

   

   

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐38.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐76
   

   

       

   

   

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐39.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 2

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐77
   

   

       

   

   

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐39.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 2

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐78
   

   

       

   

   

           

                                 

                                

                         

                                  

                                       

   

                           

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

Middlefork Savanna Natural Area and Nature Preserve occurs on the east and west sides of the project

between Dundee Road and Rondout. State‐listed species in the vicinity of the project include king rail,

Wilson’s phalarope, golden sedge, pale vetchling, marsh speedwell, Eastern prairie fringed orchid, Iowa

darter, and Blanding’s turtle. According to the Illinois BDE, there would be no impact to the Middlefork

Savanna INAI or NP “since no right‐of‐way would be taken from it and since no work would be done in

this area.”

Figures 3‐40.1 through 3‐40.3 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to the Speed Increase project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐79
   

   

       

   

   

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐40.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐80
   

   

       

   

   

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐40.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐81
   

   

       

   

   

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐40.3

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐82
   

   

       

   

   

                 

                                 

                                

                         

                             

                                 

                        

   

                               

                              

                              

                           

                              

                               

                                 

                                

                                 

                                    

                 

   

                         

                          

                                   

                                

                                      

                          

   

                               

                              

                                    

                               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Metra Fox Lake Second Track / Rondout Siding Extension

Middlefork Savanna Natural Area and Nature Preserve occur on the east and west sides of the Project

Study Areas between Dundee Road and Rondout. State‐listed species in the vicinity of the project include

king rail, Wilson’s phalarope, golden sedge, pale vetchling, marsh speedwell, Eastern prairie fringed

orchid, Iowa darter, and Blanding’s turtle. Botanical, bat habitat, avian, fish and mussel, and Blanding’s

turtle surveys were conducted during the summer of 2015 for the Metra Fox Lake Second Track and

Rondout Siding Extension projects. The findings are summarized for each survey below.

Botanical Survey

The purpose of the botanicalsurvey wasto locate, map, and describe threatened and endangered species

and high‐quality natural plan communities within the project area. The survey found populations of two

threatened plant species within the project limits: marsh speedwell and golden sedge. There were also

remnant plan communities of considerable natural quality within the project area which extended into

the adjacent Middlefork Savanna NP to the east. Two Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid populations were

found within a high‐quality wetland outside the project area, but the wetland extended into the project

area. It was noted that there were several areas showing evidence of herbicide drift damage on

vegetation. The survey concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the Eastern Prairie Fringed

Orchid by the project because the proposed rail work would occur on the west side of the right‐of‐way,

which is on the opposite side of the tracks as the found Orchid population. Erosion and sediment control

commitments are included in Section 3.23 of the EA.

Bat Habitat

Bat habitat surveys were conducted in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration Range‐Wide

Biological Assessment (BA) for Transportation Projects for Indiana Bat and Northern Long‐Eared Bat. The

survey indicated that the project area is of low habitat suitability for listed bats due to better habitat

occurring outside the project and few suitable trees existing within the project area. During the wetland

survey, no bats or signs of bats were detected under four bridges in the project area. It was determined

that the Program is not likely to adversely affect the Northern‐Long Eared Bat.

Avian Survey

The survey reported that nearly 200 species of birds have been recorded at Middlefork Savanna during

the breeding season including the endangered Wilson’s Phalarope and King Rail species. The Savanna “is

made up of some of the best remaining mesic soil savanna in Illinois. In addition, the preserve offers

diverse habitats for birds, such as other mesic and wet prairie, sedge meadow, marshes, and oak

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐83
   

   

       

   

   

   

                                   

                          

                           

                     

                               

                              

                           

                   

                                   

                             

                                   

     

       

                                 

                                   

                                      

                                     

                             

                                      

                                      

                                 

                                     

                        

     

                                

                               

                              

     

                                     

                                                            

                                 

         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

savannas.”55

The following species are likely to breed in the Savanna due to the high‐quality habitats, but were not

observed during the survey: Wilson’s Phalarope, King Rail, American Bittern, and Common Gallinule. Black

Rail, Northern Harrier, Yellow‐headed Blackbirds, and Black‐billed Cuckoos could be expected to breed at

Middlefork Savanna given the quality of the wetland and forest habitat.

The Least Bittern was detected breeding in habitat adjacent to the project at Middlefork Savanna during

the survey. The survey also observed nine otherspecieslisted as Speciesin Greatest Need of Conservation

in Illinois in the Savanna: Great Egret, Sandhill Crane, Yellow‐billed Cuckoo, Chimney Swift, Red‐headed

Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Willow Flycatcher, Marsh Wren, and Blue‐winged Warbler.

The survey concluded that since the proposed rail work would occur on the opposite side of the tracks

than the Least Bitterns breeding locations and since there is already disturbance consisting of constant

train traffic, there would be no adverse effect on the Least Bittern and other listed nesting avian species

by the project.

Fish and Mussel Survey

The fish and mussel survey was conducted on four stream crossings within the project area: an unnamed

tributary to wetland; an unnamed tributary to the North Branch of the Chicago River; the North Branch of

the Chicago River; and a second crossing of the North Branch of the Chicago River. The bridge of the

northernmost North Branch of the Chicago River crossing is proposed to be replaced as part of the project.

Eleven species of fish were observed at these four sites including the Iowa darter, a state‐threatened

species of fish. The Iowa darter was found at the unnamed tributary to the North Branch of the Chicago

River and the two North Branch of the Chicago River crossings. It was determined that there would be no

adverse effect to the Iowa darter with the implementation of a commitment to conduct no in‐stream work

on the bridge during the Iowa darter spawning season, which occurs from April 1 to June 30 during any

construction year. The commitments are included as part of Section 3.23 of the EA.

Blanding’s Turtle Survey

No Blanding’s Turtles were sighted during the survey. Illinois BDE indicates that these turtles have not

been observed in many prior surveys conducted during the past decade in and around the Middlefork

Savanna. It has been determined that the project would not adversely impact the Blanding’s Turtle.

Illinois Natural Areas

According to the Illinois BDE, there would be no impact to the Middlefork Savanna INAI or NP “since no

55 Breeding Bird Survey for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track Rail Project in Lake County, Illinois, Illinois

Natural History Survey, August 2015

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐84
   

   

       

   

   

                                

                       

                            

                       

                         

   

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

right‐of‐way would be taken from it and since no work would be done in this area.” IDNR recommends

direct coordination with the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission staff during final design/construction to

ensure avoidance of any impacts, direct or indirect, to the Middlefork Savanna. This recommendation is

included as part of commitments, which can be found in Section 3.23.

Figures 3‐41.1 through 3‐41.2 depict the Illinois Natural Areas adjacent to the Metra Fox Lake/Rondout

Siding project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐85
   

   

       

   

   

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐41.1

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐86
   

   

       

   

   

                       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐41.2

Illinois Natural Areas Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐87
   

   

       

   

   

                     

                           

                              

                              

                                  

                     

                                 

                                  

                             

                           

                   

                             

                                  

                            

       

                             

                       

                            

                               

                                      

                            

                 

   

                               

                                 

                           

        

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.12.2.2.2 Results of Wisconsin NRR 

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station; Muskego Yard Signalization; Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off

Upland plant communities within the three project areas were investigated to document the possible

presence of any remnant communities. All ten of the investigated upland areas were generally dominated

by weedy species commonly found along roadsides and disturbed areas. The low Floristic Quality Indices

and Mean C values of the upland areas indicate that that the areas have lower vegetative quality.56

Appendix G of the Wisconsin NRR provides an Upland Summary Table.

An assessment of the impact to the Northern Long‐Eared Bat was completed as part of the Wisconsin

NRR. The assessment found that there is no suitable habitat for the Northern Long‐Eared bat within or

adjacent to the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station, Muskego Yard Signalization, or the Milwaukee Station to

Cut‐Off CTC projects. Active Season Habitat Stressors and Structures Stressors listed in the Federal

Highway Administration Range‐Wide BA for Transportation Projects for Indiana Bat and Northern Long‐

Eared Bat were reviewed for potential effect of proposed conditions on the Northern Long‐Eared Bat if

the bat were found in the project area. The review found that only lighting and water/foraging habitat

alteration stressors could be applicable. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures would be applied if bats

were found prior to construction.

The Wisconsin DNR conducted an Initial and Final review of the proposed improvements for the

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station, Muskego Yard Signalization, and Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off

Signalization projects. Based upon a review of the National Heritage Inventory and other DNR records,

DNR found that no state‐listed “endangered resources or suitable habitat that could be impacted by the

projects are known or likely to occur” in the project areas. The Initial and Final Project Review letters are

included as Appendix H. Wisconsin DNR provided commitments for in‐stream work, migratory birds, and

invasive species that are discussed further in Section 3.23.

Primary Environmental Corridors

Figure 3‐42.1 through 3‐42.3 depict the PECs adjacent to the project. Implementation of the Build

Alternative would not impact the three PECs adjacent to the project in Pleasant Prairie, Oak Creek, and

Milwaukee because no work is proposed in these locations and the significant resource‐related features

would not be altered.

56 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/plants/FQA.html

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐88
   

   

       

   

   

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐42.1

Primary Environmental Corridor in Pleasant Prairie, WI

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐89
   

   

       

   

   

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐42.2

Primary Environmental Corridor in Oak Creek, WI

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐90
   

   

       

   

   

       

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐42.3

Primary Environmental Corridor in Milwaukee, WI

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐91
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                           

                               

                       

                                

                             

                                 

                            

                             

                         

                 

                                   

                        

                               

                                 

                              

                                

                               

                             

                         

         

                     

                       

                       

                           

                               

       

                             

                          

                 

                                 

                                    

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Through field surveys, Illinois BDE determined that the proposed improvements for the Glenview

Crossover, Lake Forest Crossover, Deerfield Holding Track, UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20, and Speed

Increase between A‐20 and Rondout projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

federally‐listed endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of any critical habitat. IDNR reviewed the findings of the NRR and determined that because

of the minimal scopes of work of the improvement projects, no IDNR commitments are required.

3.12.2.2.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

During the Bat Habitat surveys completed in 2015 for the Metra Fox Lake Second Track/ Rondout Siding

Extension project, swallows nests were observed under the I‐94 overpass. Construction of the second

track on the Fox Lake Subdivision would occur under the I‐94 bridge, potentially impacting nesting

swallows. Commitments were identified to protect nesting swallows during construction, and are

included as part of Section 3.23 of the EA.

Wisconsin DNR indicated as part of their Initial Project Review (Appendix H) that there is evidence of past

migratory bird nesting on the bridge over the Menomonee River. Wisconsin DNR identified commitments

to protect nesting migratory birds during construction that are included in Section 3.23 of the EA.

3.12.2.2.4 Impacts to Critical Habitat and Endangered Species during Operation 

Operational impacts such as the noise and vibration emanating from passing trains are already a part of

the existing condition within the Program Study Area. Wildlife that exist along the alignment presumably

have adapted to this intrusion. Although the effects on wildlife behavior resulting from various types of

recurrent noise are not well known, there is evidence that some species may become desensitized to

regular disturbance, such as those that might be experienced along an active rail line; however, increased

disruption during the breeding or nesting season could adversely affect local wildlife, especially

disturbances caused by construction activities.

Construction activities would include placement of embankment, track installation, special trackwork

installation, retaining wall installation, bridge replacement, culvert extension,signal installation, and track

rehabilitation. Construction noise mitigation measures should be considered to minimize potential

impacts to wildlife. Mitigation measures could include source control mitigation such as utilizing

equipment with mufflers, shields, or dampeners, and the placement of noise barriers to abate the impact

in especially wildlife‐sensitive locations.

Coordination with IDNR and Wisconsin DNR would occur during final design to ensure minimization of

disturbances on wildlife, particularly during breeding or nesting season. Commitments identified by the

DNRs are included in Section 3.23 of the EA.

The linear habitat offered by railroads provides travel corridors for wildlife to safely access larger areas of

suitable cover and food. It is also important that wildlife have the ability to access suitable habitat on

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐92
   

   

       

   

   

                                     

                              

                                 

                                  

                           

                               

                              

                           

                              

                                 

                                        

                             

                             

                             

                            

                                        

                                 

                      

	 	 	 	 	

                               

                               

                         

                            

                            

                               

   

                                                            

      

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

either side of the corridor and be able to escape from the right‐of‐way. As with other forms of

transportation, all wildlife species that cross the path of fast‐moving vehicles are susceptible to collisions.

Since dozens of trains already operate within the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor, the addition of 3 round

trips per day would only slightly increase the chances of collision. Operation of the Build Alternative may

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any threatened, endangered or candidate species.

3.12.2.2.5 Coordination with USFWS on Threatened and Endangered Species 

USFWS reviewed the NRRs for Illinois and Wisconsin and provided technical guidance to the project team,

as documented in Appendix G. USFWS does not concur with IDOT’s “No Effect” determination related to

the Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (EPFO), which was observed growing within the existing rail right‐of‐

way. USFWS explained that a “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is appropriate

for the EPFO because there is evidence of existing herbicidal damage to the species and indirect impacts

from herbicides would result in a take of the species. There would be no adverse effect on the EPFO due

to the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies because the herbicide damage is an existing condition;

the Program would only affect the EPFO or its suitable habitat in areas of new construction.

FRA will engage USFWS in site‐specific consultation under Section 7 of the ESA once funding and

construction timelines are identified. A commitment to provide wetland maps near projectsitesto ensure

proper mitigation for the EPFO is included in Section 3.23 of the EA. FRA will also work with USFWS to

identify mitigation for existing herbicide damage and develop a plan for the monitoring of EPFO prior to

construction to ensure known locations of EPFO can be avoided.

3.13 Water Resources and Aquatic Habitats

This section describes the water resources (e.g., streams and ponds) and aquatic habitats in the project

corridor.

3.13.1 Affected Environment

Watersheds

The project corridor islocated within four drainage sub‐basins as catalogued by the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS): the Chicago/Calumet (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 07120003), Des Plaines (HUC 07120004), Pike

Root (HUC 04040002), and Milwaukee (HUC 04040003). These sub‐basins collectively drain a total of

3,110 square milesin three states (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana). The Chicago/Calumet and Des Plaines

sub‐basins drain to the Mississippi River and the Pike Root and Milwaukee sub‐basins drain to Lake

Michigan.57

57 http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/ and http://ilrdss.isws.illinois.edu/links/watersheds_all.asp

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐93
   

   

       

   

   

      

                               

                                      

                                   

                                   

                                      

                            

                   

                                   

         

           

       

         

             

             

             

             

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Surface Water Resources

Surface water resources in the project corridor are riverine and lacustrine (e.g., ponds and lakes).

A total of 41 rivers and creeks and their tributaries are located within the project corridor. Of that total,

3 of the rivers (the North Branch of the Chicago River, the Menomonee River in Milwaukee, and the

Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee) are listed as navigable waters of the U.S. under Section 10 of the River

and Harbors Act of 1899. The corridor runs adjacent to the North Branch of the Chicago River and does

not cross it. The corridor crosses both the Menomonee River and the Kinnickinnic River.

There are 5 lakes and ponds in the project corridor.

Figure 3‐43 lists the lakes and ponds in the project corridor and Figure 3‐44 lists the physical parameters

of streams in the corridor.

Figure 3‐43

Lakes and Ponds within the Project Corridor

Name Location Size (acres) Adjacent/Within Corridor

Eagle Lake Lake Forest, IL 22 Adjacent

Unnamed (Lake Andrea) Kenosha County, WI 120.9 Adjacent

Unnamed (Local Water) Kenosha County, WI 6.2 Adjacent

Unnamed (Local Water) Kenosha County, WI 0.5 Adjacent

Unnamed (Local Water) Kenosha County, WI 3.4 Adjacent

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐94
   

   

       

   

   

                 

         

   

     

   

     

   

     

       

     

     

     

         

     

         

         

         

     

          

     

     

       

     

     

      

              

   

   

     

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐44

Summary of Physical Characteristics of Streams within the Project Corridor

Stream Length (miles) Predominant Sub‐

Watershed Land Use Flow Characteristics

Chicago/Calumet Sub‐Basin

South Branch of

Chicago River (IL_HCC‐

01)

3.97 Urban perennial

North Branch of

Chicago River (IL_HCC‐

08)

5.70 Urban perennial

North Branch Chicago

River (IL_HCC‐07) 11.85 Forest Preserve perennial

West Fork North

Branch Chicago River

(IL_HCCB‐05)

14.41 Residential/forest

preserve

Perennial

Middle Fork North

Branch Chicago River

(IL_HCCC‐02)

18.49 Forest preserve Perennial

Des Plaines Sub‐Basin

Des Plaines River

(IL_G‐07) 10.74 Forest preserve/industrial Perennial

Des Plaines River

(IL_G‐25) 6.90 Forest preserve Perennial

Des Plaines River

(IL_G‐08) 0.98 Forest preserve Perennial

Unnamed Tributary to

the Des Plaines River

(735650)

2.03 Agricultural

Perennial for small

amount between local

lake and Des Plaines

River, then intermittent

Lower Pleasant Prairie

Ditch (736300) 2.73 Agricultural intermittent

Jerome Creek

(736500) 4.60 Agricultural 1.7 miles are Perennial,

otherwise intermittent

Unnamed River

(5041671) 0.63 Agricultural perennial

Pike Root Sub‐Basin

South Branch Pike

River (2500) 8.11 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(5041356) 0.64 Industrial/Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Airport

Tributary (2825) 1.05 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(5041140) 1.23 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(5041078) 0.52 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(2800) 1.96 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Somers

Tributary to South

Branch Pike River

(2700)

3.38 Agricultural perennial

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐95
   

   

       

   

   

         

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

     

   

       

     

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

                         

                                 

                               

                                

                 

                                                            

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Stream Length (miles) Predominant Sub‐

Watershed Land Use Flow Characteristics

Unnamed Stream

(5040635) 1.78 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed River (2600) 2.96 Agricultural perennial

Unnamed River (2100) 2.85 Agricultural perennial

Unnamed River (2200) 2.62 Agricultural perennial

Unnamed Stream

(5040035) 0.68 Residential/Industrial intermittent

Waxdale Creek (2300) 2.91 Residential/Industrial perennial

Hoods Creek (3100) 9.85 Residential/Agricultural perennial

Unnamed Stream

(5038885) 1.83 Agricultural intermittent

Husher Creek (3500) 2.54 Agricultural intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(3000339) 1.25 Agricultural/Industrial intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(3000338) 1.45 Agricultural Perennial/ intermittent

Root River (2900) 14.66 Residential/Agricultural Perennial

Unnamed Stream

(3510) 1.70 Residential intermittent

Oak Creek (14500) 13.32 Agricultural/Industrial Perennial

North Branch Oak

Creek (14900) –

crosses three times

5.70 Industrial perennial

Unnamed Stream

(5037305) 2.42 Industrial intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(5037170) 1.26 Industrial intermittent

Unnamed Stream

(5037055) 0.60 Industrial intermittent

Milwaukee Sub‐Basin

Holmes Avenue Creek

(15550) 1.80 Industrial Intermittent

Wilson Park Creek

(9975) 2.00 Industrial Perennial

Kinnickinnick River

(15100) 4.44 Industrial Perennial

Menomonee River

(16000) 3.61 Industrial Perennial

Special Status Streams

Both Wisconsin designates high quality streams as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) or Exceptional

Resource Waters (ERWs). Illinois designates high quality streams as ORWs. An Illinois ORW is a “surface

water body or water body segment that is of exceptional ecological or recreational significance and must

be designated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board” as such.58 Wisconsin’s ORWs and ERWs are surface

waters that provide outstanding recreational opportunities, support valuable fisheries and wildlife

58 Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Part 303.205, Outstanding Resource Waters

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐96
   

   

       

   

   

                              

                                

                                      

                                

                                 

                         

                              

                                   

                                  

                       

                                 

                             

                               

                             

               

                                   

                                   

               

                           

                                

                             

                       

                                      

                      

                     

	 	

               

                                                            

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

habitat, have good water quality, and are not significantly impacted by human activities. ORWs typically

do not have any point sources discharging pollutants directly into the water. No increases of pollutant

levels are allowed. If a waterbody has existing point sources at the time of designation, it is more likely

to be designated as an ERW. Exceptions can be made on maintaining background water quality levels

when an increase of pollutant loading to an ERW is warranted because human health would otherwise be

compromised. Wisconsin has determined that these waters warrant additional protection from the

effects of pollution.59 There are no Outstanding or Exceptional Resource Waters in the project corridor.

Illinois classifies streams based on fish communities in order to track the level of biotic integrity of a

stream. Streams classified with a letter grade “A” are considered most diverse and are referred to as

Biologically Significant Streams (BSSs). There are no BSSs in the project corridor.

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of free‐flowing river segments in the U.S. that are

believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of

more than local or regional significance. Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that

would adversely affect one or more NRI segments.60

One waterway adjacent to the project corridor has been listed on the NRI: the Des Plaines River. The

existing rail corridor runs adjacent to the Des Plaines River from Grand Avenue in Gurnee, IL to the Illinois‐

Wisconsin border, a distance of 9 track‐miles.

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified for the Des Plaines River are for scenery and

recreation. ORVs of scenery and recreation for the Des Plaines River mean that the “landscape elements

of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features”

and recreational opportunities are “popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond the

region of comparison”.61 The rail corridor does not cross the Des Plaines River and the river does not run

within the rail right‐of‐way. No rail bridges cross the river.

There are no Illinois Natural Area Inventory streams within the corridor.

3.13.2 Potential Impacts

3.13.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact water resources.

59 Wisconsin DNR, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/orwerw.html 60 http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html 61 http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/eligb.html#orv

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐97
   

   

       

   

   

                            

                         

                                   

                         

                          

                          

                       

                              

           

                       

                       

                        

                            

                       

                              

                      

                       

                            

       

                   

     

                                 

                             

                           

                                     

       

                         

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.13.2.2 Build Alternative 

3.13.2.2.1 Watersheds 

The Program Study Area traverses the four drainage sub‐basins identified earlier in this section. Specific

impacts to surface water that could affect these drainage basins are discussed below.

3.13.2.2.2 Surface Water Resources 

There would be no impacts to surface water resources as a result of implementation of the increase in

Hiawatha Service frequencies. Impacts to surface water resources during construction of the

improvement projects that support the increased frequencies would be temporary. In general, direct

impactsto surface waters could result from construction and the replacement ofstructures. Construction

associated with the improvement projects includes clearing/grubbing, grading, filling, and excavation that

could remove vegetative cover and exposes soils. Such activities increase the potential for erosion and

sedimentation by exposing disturbed soils to precipitation.

In‐stream construction, streambank modification, and placement ofstructures in the streams could cause

minimal increases in turbidity and sedimentation and temporarily alter downstream hydraulics and

substrate conditions. Downstream aquatic systems could be temporarily impacted by the increases in

turbidity and sedimentation. Potential impacts would be minimized through the use and enforcement of

Erosion and Sedimentation Control policies and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits that employ Best Management Practices (e.g., silt fences, check dams, and sediment basins) and

construction activities would comply with all spill prevention control and countermeasures requirements.

Permanent Best Management Practices installed following construction (e.g., permanent seeding and use

of native vegetation) would further reduce impacts. These Best Management Practices are included in

the Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.

Specific impacts due to the improvement projects are discussed below.

Rondout Siding Extension

As part of the Rondout Siding Extension project, several culverts conveying flow under the rail line would

be extended under the new track. These waterways would be temporarily impacted during the

construction of the culvert extension. Impacts would cease immediately after construction is complete.

Impacts to fish and other species in the area of the project are discussed in Section 3.12 Critical Habitat

and Endangered Species.

Figure 3‐45 depicts the water resources adjacent to the Rondout Siding Extension project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐98
   

   

       

   

   

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐45

Water Resources Adjacent to Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐99
   

   

       

   

   

         

                                     

                                  

                            

                                     

       

                             

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

A bridge over the North Branch of the Chicago River is proposed to be replaced to accommodate a second

track onto the Fox Lake Subdivision. Temporary impacts to the North Branch of the Chicago River may

occur during construction of the bridge, but would cease immediately after construction is complete.

Impacts to fish and other species in the area of the project are discussed in Section 3.12 Critical Habitat

and Endangered Species.

Figure 3‐46 depicts the water resources adjacent to the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐100
   

   

       

   

   

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐46

Water Resources Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐101
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                                    

                                    

   

                             

                             

         

          

                             

             

                               

                                 

                             

                                  

                            

                              

                             

           

	 	

                                   

                                

                               

                             

                          

                               

                                  

                            

                         

                   

                                                            

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.13.2.2.3 Special Status Streams 

According to CEQ guidance, the proposed action is evaluated on whether it could have an adverse effect

on the natural, cultural, and recreational values of the NRI segment. These values are listed as ORVs on

the state NRI list. Adverse effects on NRI rivers may occur under conditions which include, but are not

limited to:

 Destruction or alteration of all or part of the free flowing nature of the river;

 Introduction of visual, audible, or other sensory intrusions which are out of character with the

river or alter its setting;

 Deterioration of water quality; or

 Transfer or sale of property adjacent to an NRI river without adequate conditions or restriction

for protecting the river and its surrounding environment.62

The implementation of the Build Alternative would not have an adverse effect on the ORVs of the Des

Plaines River because the operation would not alter the free flowing nature of the river, would not

introduce intrusions that are out of character with the rivers’ settings, would not deteriorate water

quality, and does not involve the sale of adjacent property. The river’s floodplains are located within the

rail right‐of‐way at various portions of the route. Section 3.15 discusses impacts to floodplains.

Potential impacts to wetlands, which are often adjacent to waterways, are discussed in Section 3.16. A

discussion of threatened and endangered aquatic species that may be impacted by the Build Alternative

is presented in Section 3.12.

3.14 Water Quality

The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the Nation’s waters.”63 Under CWA Section 303(d), states are required to classify waters with

respect to impairments. Waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water quality

standards are considered impaired and are catalogued in the 303(d) list, requiring total maximum daily

loads (TMDLs). TMDLs establish pollution reduction goals to improve the quality of impaired waters.64

In Illinois, waters are protected and evaluated under the General Use Water Quality Standards (title 35

Illinois Administrative Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Subparts A and B). Waters that do not fully

support their designated uses are considered impaired. Designated uses include aquatic life (AL), fish

consumption (FC), public and food processing water supplies (PWS), primary contact (PC), secondary

contact (SC), indigenous aquatic life (IAL), and aesthetic quality (AQ).65

62 http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/consult.html 63 33 U.S. Code § 1251(a) 64 https://www.epa.gov/tmdl 65 http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document‐33354

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐102
   

   

       

   

   

                                       

                               

                            

                                   

   

                             

   

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

In Wisconsin, waters are each assigned four uses that carry with them a set of goals: Fish and Aquatic Life

(FAL), Recreation, Public Health and Welfare, and Wildlife.66 Waters that do not meet water quality

standards are considered impaired. The Wisconsin DNR maintains an impaired waters list that identifies

why the water is not meeting standards and what pollutants or indicators need to be addressed to restore

aquatic health.67

3.14.1 Affected Environment

Figure 3‐47 below provides an impairment summary for the 303(d) Impaired Waters within the Program

Study Area.

66 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/usedesignations.html 67 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/management.html

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐103
   

   

       

   

   

   

                   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

         

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

                                                            

                               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐47

Impairment Summary for Streams within the Program Study Area68 69

Stream Designated Use Cause Source Location Priority Status of

TMDL

Chicago/Calumet Sub‐Basin

North Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HCC‐02)

Fish

Consumption

Mercury;

Polychlorinated

biphenyls

Atmospheric

Deposition –

Toxics; Source

Unknown;

Combined Sewer

Overflows;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers

Cook

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Indigenous

Aquatic Life

Oxygen, Dissolved;

Total Dissolved Solids

Cook

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

South Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HC‐01)

Indigenous

Aquatic Life

Oxygen, Dissolved;

Total Dissolved Solids

Source

Unknown;

Combined Sewer

Overflows;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers

Cook

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Fish

Consumption

Polychlorinated

biphenyls

Cook

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

North Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HCC‐07)

Aquatic Life

Aldrin; DDT;

Hexachlorobenzene;

Phosphorus (Total);

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS)

Contaminated

Sediments;

Channelization;

Streambank

Modifications/

destabilization;

Combined Sewer

Overflows;

Highway/Road/

Bridge Runoff;

Municipal Point

Source

Discharges;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers;

Source Unknown

Cook

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

Fish

Consumption

Polychlorinated

biphenyls

Cook

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Aquatic Life Chloride; Oxygen,

Dissolved

Cook

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Chloride and

Oxygen,

Dissolved

Primary

Contact

Recreation

Fecal Coliform Cook

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Fecal

Coliform

North Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HCC‐08)

Indigenous

Aquatic Life

Iron; Oxygen, Dissolved;

Phosphorus (Total);

Total Dissolved Solids

Atmospheric

Deposition –

Toxics; Source

Unknown;

Combined Sewer

Overflows;

Sediment

Resuspension;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers;

Impacts from

Hydrostructure

Cook

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

Fish

Consumption

Mercury;

Polychlorinated

biphenyls

Cook

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

68 Illinois EPA Draft Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List, Appendix A‐2, 2016 69 http://dnr.wi.gov/water/impairedsearch.aspx

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐104
   

   

       

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

       

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Stream Designated Use Cause Source Location Priority Status of

TMDL

Flow Regulation/

modification;

Municipal Point

Source

Discharges

Middle Fork

North Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HCCC‐02)

Aesthetic

Quality

Bottom Deposits;

Phosphorus (Total)

Channelization;

Loss of Riparian

Habitat;

Streambank

Modifications/

destabilization;

Urban Runoff;

Storm Sewers;

Contaminated

Sediments

Lake

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

Aquatic Life

DDT;

Hexachlorobenzene;

Sedimentation/

Siltation; Total

Suspended Solids (TSS)

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Aquatic Life Chloride; Oxygen,

Dissolved

Lake

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Chloride and

Oxygen,

Dissolved

Primary

Contact

Recreation

Fecal Coliform Lake

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Fecal

Coliform

West Fork

North Branch

Chicago River

(IL_HCCB‐05)

Aquatic Life

Aldrin; DDT; Endrin;

Hexachlorobenzene;

Phosphorus (Total);

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS)

Contaminated

Sediments;

Channelization;

Loss of Riparian

Habitat; Site

Clearance;

Highway/Road/B

ridge Runoff;

Municipal Point

Source

Discharges;

Urban

Runoff/Storm

Sewers; Source

Unknown

Cook

County, IL Medium Not

Developed

Aquatic Life Chloride; Oxygen,

Dissolved

Cook

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Chloride and

Oxygen,

Dissolved

Primary

Contact

Recreation

Fecal Coliform Cook

County, IL Low

Stage 3

TMDL for

Fecal

Coliform

Des Plaines Sub‐Basin

Des Plaines

River (IL_G‐07)

Aquatic Life Arsenic; Chloride;

Phosphorus (Total);

Streambank

Modifications/

Destabilization;

Contaminated

Sediments;

Municipal Point

Source

Discharges;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers;

Atmospheric

Deposition –

Toxics; Source

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Primary

Contact

Recreation

Fecal Coliform Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Fish

Consumption

Mercury;

Polychlorinated

biphenyls

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐105
   

   

       

   

   

       

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

         

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

     

       

           

       

           

       

   

   

   

       

       

   

   

               

   

   

               

   

   

               

   

               

 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Stream Designated Use Cause Source Location Priority Status of

TMDL

Unknown

Des Plaines

River (IL_G‐08)

Primary

Contact

Recreation

Fecal Coliform Source

Unknown; Crop

Production;

Atmospheric

Deposition ‐

Toxics

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Fish

Consumption Mercury

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Aquatic Life

Oxygen, Dissolved;

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS)

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Des Plaines

River (IL_G‐25)

Fish

Consumption Mercury

Contaminated

Sediments;

Source

Unknown; Site

Clearance;

Urban Runoff/

Storm Sewers;

Atmospheric

Deposition –

Toxics

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Aquatic Life

Arsenic; Oxygen,

Dissolved;

Sedimentation/

Siltation; Total

Suspended Solids (TSS)

Lake

County, IL Medium NotDeveloped

Pike Root Sub‐Basin

Waxdale Creek

(2300)

Fish and

Aquatic Life

Sediment/ Total

Suspended Solids

Degraded

Habitat

Racine

County, WI Low NotDeveloped

Root River

(2900)

Fish and

Aquatic Life Total Phosphorus

Degraded

Biological

Community

Milwaukee

and Racine

Counties,

WI

Medium Not

Developed

Oak Creek

(14500)

Fish and

Aquatic Life

Chloride

Chronic Aquatic

Toxicity, Acute

Aquatic Toxicity

Milwaukee

County, WI Low NotDeveloped

Total Phosphorus

Degraded

Biological

Community

Milwaukee

County, WI Low NotDeveloped

Holmes

Avenue Creek

Full Body

Contact –

Swimming,

Boating

Fecal Coliform

Recreational

Restrictions –

Pathogens

Milwaukee

County, WI Low Not

Developed

Wilson Park

Creek

Full Body

Contact –

Swimming,

Boating

Fecal Coliform

Recreational

Restrictions –

Pathogens

Milwaukee

County, WI Low NotDeveloped

Kinnickinnic

River (MP 0.00‐

2.83)

Full Body

Contact –

Swimming,

Boating

Fecal Coliform

Recreational

Restrictions –

Pathogens

Milwaukee

County, WI Low NotDeveloped

Menomonee

River

Full Body

Contact –

Swimming,

Boating

Fecal Coliform

Recreational

Restrictions –

Pathogens

Milwaukee

County, WI Low Not

Developed

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐106
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

               

                             

                         

                           

                           

                               

                     

                            

                                 

                              

                                

                               

                          

                   

                             

                              

                             

                           

       

                   

     

                                 

                             

                           

                                     

       

         

                                     

                                  

                             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.14.2 Potential Impacts

3.14.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact water quality.

3.14.2.2 Build Alternative 

Once the Program is implemented, derailments, spills and leaks may occur during the operation of the

increased service. These incidents would be handled through standard contingency plans that would

include notifying the appropriate state authorities of the incident and having qualified personnel remove

the materials. However, the likelihood of derailments, spills, and leaks occurring would not appreciably

change as a result of the increase in service; therefore, the occurrence of temporary and localized

discharge of pollutants would not be impacted by the Build Alternative.

Maintenance of the right‐of‐way has the potential to affect surface water quality. Maintenance includes

cleaning of vegetation, the cleaning of ballast, periodic repair and replacement of ties and tracks, and the

maintenance of bridge facilities. These actions can result in the temporary and localized discharge of

pollutants. Some direct contact to streamsfrom chemicals may occur because of wind drift; however, the

majority of sprayed and/or applied chemicals would be filtered out or adsorbed as surface runoff flows

through vegetated swales and wetlands outside the rights‐of‐way. Maintenance practices in the Build

condition would be the same as in current conditions.

During construction, there is a potential to temporarily impact water quality as culverts are bridges are

being replaced or other modifications are made near water resources. These impacts would be avoided

or minimized by the placement of Best Management Practices (e.g., sediment and erosion control, silt

fences, check dams, and sediment basins). These Best Management Practices are included in the

Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.

Specific impacts due to the improvement projects are discussed below.

Rondout Siding Extension

As part of the Rondout Siding Extension project, several culverts conveying flow under the rail line would

be extended under the new track. These waterways would be temporarily impacted during the

construction of the culvert extension. Impacts would cease immediately after construction is complete.

Impacts to fish and other species in the area of the project are discussed in Section 3.12 Critical Habitat

and Endangered Species.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

A bridge over the North Branch of the Chicago River is proposed to be replaced to accommodate a second

track onto the Fox Lake Subdivision. Temporary impacts to the North Branch of the Chicago River may

occur during construction of the bridge, but would cease immediately after construction is complete.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐107
   

   

       

   

   

                                     

       

                           

                         

                             

                                   

                                  

                                       

                                

                         

                         

         

                                

                     

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Impacts to fish and other species in the area of the project are discussed in Section 3.12 Critical Habitat

and Endangered Species.

3.15 Floodplains

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management “requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible

the long‐ and short‐term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains

and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable

alternative”.70

Section 2(a) of the Order provides an eight‐step process that agencies should carry out as part of the

decision‐making on projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. The first step is to

determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain, which is the area which has a one percent or

greater chance of flooding in any given year. These floodplains are known as 100‐year floodplains, or

Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary

responsibility for identifying flood‐prone areas. FEMA floodplain mapping was utilized to assess the

corridor for 100‐year floodplain areas.

3.15.1 Affected Environment

Several 100‐year floodplains cross or are located within the rail right‐of‐way of the Program Study Area.

The locations of the floodplains are listed in Figure 3‐48.

70 https://www.fema.gov/executive‐order‐11988‐floodplain‐management

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐108
   

   

       

   

   

           

           

     

             

       

  

     

     

   

       

         

   

         

           

         

       

         

             

         

       

	 	

               

                             

                            

                           

                     

                       

                       

                          

                              

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐48

100‐Year Floodplain Streams within Program Study Area

Stream Name Location(s)

North Branch Chicago River Chicago, IL

Morton Grove, IL

West Fork North Branch Chicago

River Northbrook, IL

Middle Fork North Branch

Chicago River

Lake Forest, IL

Green Oaks, IL

Waukegan, IL

Gurnee Tributary Gurnee, IL

Des Plaines River Gurnee, IL

Wadsworth, IL

Suburban Country Club

Tributary Gurnee, IL

Jerome Creek (abuts right‐of‐

way) Pleasant Prairie, WI

Hoods Creek (abuts right‐of‐

way) Sturtevant, WI

Root River Caledonia, WI

Oak Creek Oak Creek, WI

North Branch Oak Creek Oak Creek, WI

Wilson Park Creek Milwaukee, WI

Milwaukee River Milwaukee, WI

3.15.2 Potential Impacts

3.15.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact 100‐year floodplains.

3.15.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in frequencies on the Hiawatha Service would not impact 100‐year floodplains because the

Build Alternative would continue to operate the Hiawatha Service on the existing rail alignment.

Construction of the improvement projects needed to accommodate the increase in service could cause

temporary and permanent impacts to 100‐year floodplains in areas where proposed improvement

projects are located within floodplains or where culvert and bridge replacements occur. Temporarily

affected areas would be restored following construction. Several improvement projects would be

constructed within 100‐year floodplains. During final design, coordination with FEMA would occur to

ensure that the projects would not increase flood heights within the 100‐year floodplains. The projects

are discussed below.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐109
   

   

       

   

   

     

                             

                                        

                                 

                                     

                        

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Rondout Siding Extension

The Rondout Siding Extension project would construct 1.76 miles of new track on 5 foot embankment

starting 500 feet north of the Illinois Route 60 bridge in Lake Forest, IL. The new track would require the

extension of five existing culverts under the new track to maintain water flow under the tracks. The

culvert to be extended at Milepost 30.9 is located within a Zone AE floodplain that crosses the tracks over

a 300 foot section. Figure 3‐49 depicts the floodplain at this location.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐110
   

   

       

   

   

                

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐49

100‐Year Floodplain Adjacent to Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐111
   

   

       

   

   

                                      

                         

                            

                               

                                 

                              

                         

                              

                        

   

         

                                       

                                      

                                      

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                 

                       

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

The culvert carries the North Branch of the Chicago River between the east and west sides of the track.

Construction of the culvert extension would cause temporary impacts to the floodplain during

construction and the new embankment and track could permanently impact the floodplain. During final

design, a 100‐year flood analysis would be undertaken to determine whether the work would create an

increase of 0.01 feet or more in the 100‐year conditions. Final design would comply with all applicable

FEMA regulations. At the time of final design, floodplain mitigation would be identified, if needed, and

coordinated with local officials. Mitigation can include reestablishing a connection between the

floodplain and stream channel and the use of native vegetation, soils, and other natural elements. NPDES

permitting would also minimize impacts. Mitigation is included in the Environmental Commitments in

Section 3.23.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track

The Metra Fox Lake Second Track project proposes to construct a total of 1.68 miles of new track on new

5 foot embankment. The new track would serve as a second main track on the Fox Lake Subdivision and

would connect to the CP C&M Subdivision just south of Illinois Route 176 in Lake Forest, IL. The proposed

track to be constructed adjacent to the CP C&M main tracks would be constructed within two small

sections of floodplains north of the EJ&E rail‐rail crossing and north of the Illinois Route 176 at‐grade

crossing. The project also proposes to replace a bridge crossing the Middle Fork North Branch of the

Chicago River and install new track on new embankment within a Zone AE floodplain spanning the length

of the river. Figure 3‐50 depicts the floodplains at this location.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐112
   

   

       

   

   

                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐50

100‐Year Floodplain Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐113
   

   

       

   

   

                               

                           

                              

                                    

                                

                           

                               

                         

       

   

                           

                                    

                                  

             

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Construction of the new track on new embankment and new bridge would cause temporary impacts to

the floodplains during construction and the new embankment and track could permanently impact the

floodplains. During final design, a 100‐year flood analysis would be undertaken to determine whether the

work would create an increase of 0.01 feet or more in the 100‐year conditions. Final design would comply

with all applicable FEMA regulations. At the time of final design, floodplain mitigation would be identified,

if needed, and coordinated with local officials. Mitigation can include reestablishing a connection

between the floodplain and stream channel and the use of native vegetation, soils, and other natural

elements. NPDES permitting would also minimize impacts. Mitigation is included in the Environmental

Commitments in Section 3.23.

Muskego Yard Signalization

The Muskego Yard Signalization project proposes installation of railroad signaling and new track within

the Yard limits. As part of the project, track resurfacing and tie replacement would occur over the bridge

that crosses the Burnham Canal. The Burnham Canal channel is identified as a Zone AE floodplain. Figure

3‐51.1 depicts the floodplains at this location.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐114
   

   

       

   

   

                  

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐51.1

100‐Year Floodplain at Burnham Canal within Muskego Yard

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐115
   

   

       

   

   

                     

                                   

                                

                          

             

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

The proposed work on the bridge would not impact the floodplain.

At the west end of the Muskego Yard project, rail resurfacing and tie replacement would occur on two

yard tracks and new track on existing embankment would be constructed within a Zone AE floodplain.

Additional work includes installation of railroad signals at several locations within the floodplain. Figure

3‐51.2 depicts the floodplain at this location.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐116
   

   

       

   

   

                    

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐51.2

100‐Year Floodplain at the West End of Muskego Yard

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐117
   

   

       

   

   

                       

                              

                                

                                     

                               

                          

                           

                             

                        

     

                                  

                                

                        

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Rail resurfacing, tie replacement, and installation of signals would cause temporary impacts during

construction. Since the new track would be constructed on existing embankment, it is not anticipated

that the project would impact the flood heights. However, a 100‐year flood analysis would be undertaken

during final design to determine whether the work would create an increase of 0.01 feet or more in the

100‐year conditions. Final design would comply with all applicable FEMA regulations. At the time of final

design, floodplain mitigation would be identified, if needed, and coordinated with local officials.

Mitigation can include reestablishing a connection between the floodplain and stream channel and the

use of native vegetation, soils, and other natural elements. NPDES permitting would also minimize

impacts. Mitigation is included in the Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.Milwaukee Station to

Cut‐Off CTC Installation

The project proposes installation of railroad signaling throughout the project area. At the west end of the

project, installation of signals would occur within a Zone AE floodplain. The proposed signal work would

not impact the floodplain. Figure 3‐52 depicts the floodplain at this location.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐118
   

   

       

   

   

                        

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐52

100‐Year Floodplain at the West End of Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐119
   

   

       

   

   

                                         

                                  

                                

                                   

                       

                           

                          

                          

                         

                 

     

                                 

                      

               

       

         

     

   

     

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.16 Wetlands

Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all

year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.71 Wetlands are

important because they support both aquatic and terrestrial species. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

provides protection for wetlands and other waters of the U.S.72 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the

jurisdiction to regulate the discharge of fill materials into these water resources.

3.16.1 Affected Environment

Wetlands were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory

(NWI) mapping system. Wetlands are classified by landscape position, vegetation cover, and hydrologic

regime and include five major wetland types: marine, tidal, lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine.73 The

primary wetland communities within the project corridor are palustrine (i.e., freshwater) emergent (PEM),

palustrine forested/scrub‐shrub (PFO/PSS), palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) (i.e., ponds), and

riverine (i.e., rivers).

NWI mapping from the USFWS was used to inventory existing wetlands within 100 feet of the rail

centerline between Chicago and Milwaukee. The findings are summarized in Figure 3‐53.

Figure 3‐53

Acreage of NWI Wetland Types within the Project Corridor

Wetland Type Acres of Wetlands within

100’ of the Rail Centerline

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

(PEM) 806.09

Freshwater Forested/Shrub

Wetland (PFO/PSS) 754.72

Freshwater Pond (PUB) 93.74

Riverine 3187.93

Total 4842.48

71 http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what‐wetland 72 http://www.epa.gov/cwa‐404/section‐404‐permit‐program 73 http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands‐classification‐and‐types#marshes

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐120
   

   

       

   

   

	 	

             

                           

                         

                         

                         

       

                                     

                                        

                         

                               

                                  

   

                             

                              

                                

               

                        

                               

                            

                             

                 

                               

                            

                                    

                                

               

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.16.2 Potential Impacts

3.16.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact wetlands.

3.16.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies would not impact wetlands. Construction of the

improvement projects needed to accommodate the increase in service could cause temporary and

permanent impacts to wetlands in areas where proposed improvement projects are located within

floodplains or where culvert and bridge replacements occur. Temporarily affected areas would be

restored following construction.

Illinois BDE performed a review of the projects in Illinois as part of its duties under the Illinois Interagency

Wetland Policy Act – Part 1090. BDE found that there would be no impacts to any wetlands found in the

following project areas: Glenview Universal Crossover; UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternatives

1 and 2; Speed Increase between A‐20 and Rondout; Deerfield Holding Track; and Lake Forest Universal

Crossover. See the results of the wetland review in the Natural Resources Review for Sequence 19152 in

Appendix E.

WisDOT hired an environmental consultant to conduct a Natural Resource Review of the projects in

Wisconsin. The consultant found that there were no wetlands located in the following project areas:

Muskego Yard Signalization and Milwaukee Station to Cut‐Off. The results of the wetland review in the

Natural Resources Review are included in Appendix F.

Several improvement projects would be constructed within existing wetland areas. During final design,

wetland impact analyses would occur to determine the extent of the impacts to wetlands and the

appropriate actions to mitigate the impacts. Coordination with State and Federal agencies on approvals

and permits would be attained prior to construction. The projects impacting wetlands are discussed

below.

Metra Fox Lake Second Track / Rondout Siding Extension

BDE performed a combined review of the Metra Fox Lake Second Track and Rondout Siding Extension

projects for wetland impacts because the projects are physically linked together. Thirty‐eight sites were

identified and examined in the field and 18 of those sites were determined to be wetlands. The Wetland

Delineation Report for the combined project area is included as Appendix E. Figures 3‐54 identifies the

type, quality, and function of each wetland.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐121
   

   

       

   

   

                         

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

              

       

              

       

              

       

            

             

       

   

   

          

       

               

             

           

       

   

          

               

         

        

             

       

   

          

               

         

            

           

         

         

            

             

       

          

       

               

             

           

       

          

       

               

             

           

       

   

          

       

               

             

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐54

Wetland Summary for the Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout Siding Extension Project Study Area

Site

Number

Wetland

Community Type/

NWI Code

Area within

Project Study

Area (acre)

Floristic

Quality Index

(FQI)

High Quality

Aquatic

Resource?

Potential for Project‐Related

Impacts to Wetland

1 Wet meadow/

Upland 0.15 7.3 No Unanticipated. Site 1 is locatedoutside the construction footprint.

2 Wet meadow/

Upland 0.10 4.9 No Unanticipated. Site 2 is locatedoutside the construction footprint.

3 Wet shrubland/

Upland 0.09 8.5 No Unanticipated. Site 3 is locatedoutside the construction footprint.

5 Wet meadow;

Upland 0.24 9.5 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on opposite side of

track as Site 5.

6

Wetland pond/

Palustrine forested/

scrub‐shrub

0.23 11.3 No

Impact to wetland is possible.

Construction would occur on

opposite side of track as Site 6 but

east and west sides are connected by

a culvert through which water flows

east towards Site 6.

7 Wet meadow/

Upland 0.10 5.7 Yes

Impact to wetland is probable.

Portions of Site 7 may be filled to

construct the track on new

embankment.

8 Marsh/Upland 0.21 15.1 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on opposite side of

track as Site 8.

9

Wet meadow/

Palustrine

emergent

0.16 14.1 Yes

Impact to wetland is probable.

Portions of Site 9 may be filled to

construct the track on new

embankment. East and west sides of

track are connected by a culvert

through which water flows east

towards Site 9A and 9B.

10

Sedge meadow/

Palustrine

emergent

0.05 12.3 Yes*

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on opposite side of

track as Site 10.

12 Marsh/Palustrine

emergent

0.07 11.9 Yes

Impact to wetland is possible.

Construction would occur on

opposite side of track as Site 12 but

east and west sides are connected by

a culvert through which water flows

east towards Site 12.

14 Marsh/Upland 0.07 10.3 Yes

Impact to wetland is possible.

Construction would occur on

opposite side of track as Site 14 but

east and west sides are connected by

a culvert through which water flows

east towards Site 14.

16

Sedge meadow/

Palustrine

emergent

0.27 27.7 Yes

Impact to wetland is possible.

Construction would occur on

opposite side of track as Site 16 but

east and west sides are connected by

a culvert through which water flows

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐122
   

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

     

       

            

             

       

   

         

      

         

       

     

   

          

               

         

   

        

             

       

   

          

               

         

   

              

       

                           

                           

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Site

Number

Wetland

Community Type/

NWI Code

Area within

Project Study

Area (acre)

Floristic

Quality Index

(FQI)

High Quality

Aquatic

Resource?

Potential for Project‐Related

Impacts to Wetland

east towards Site 16.

21 Wet forbland/

Upland 0.24 35.0 Yes

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on opposite side of

track as Site 21.

28 Forested wetland/

Upland 0.02 8.0 No

Temporary impacts to wetland are

possible during construction.

Construction would occur within the

existing right‐of‐way and fill would

not be added.

31 Wet meadow/

Upland 0.03 10.2 No

Impact to wetland is probable.

Portions of Site 31 may be filled to

construct the track on new

embankment.

32 Marsh/wet

meadow/Upland 0.08 20.2 Yes

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on opposite side of

track as Site 32.

34 Wet meadow/

Upland 0.04 10.9 No

Impact to wetland is probable.

Portions of Site 34 may be filled to

construct the track on new

embankment.

36

Wet floodplain

forest/Palustrine

forested

<0.01 18.6 Yes Unanticipated. Site 36 is located

outside the construction footprint.

* Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid was found near Wetland Site 10 during field visit

Figures 3‐55.1 through 3‐55.2 depict the wetlands adjacent to the Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout

Siding Extension project.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 3‐123

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                    

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐55.1

Wetlands Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐124
   

   

       

   

   

                    

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐55.2

Wetlands Adjacent to Metra Fox Lake Second Track/Rondout Siding Extension

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐125
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                                    

                           

                                      

                                   

                              

                           

                              

       

           

                                 

                                 

                                   

                      

                       

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

        

           

   

       

   

        

           

   

   

   

          

               

         

   

   

   

         

      

         

           

   

   

   

        

           

   

          

         

         

        

           

   

                           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

During final design, Wetland Impact Evaluation (WIE) forms would be completed and submitted to IDOT

BDE to document the extent of impacts to the wetlands identified in the figure above. The WIEs would

demonstrate that design alternatives were considered to avoid and minimize adverse wetland impacts to

the extent practical. IDOT BDE indicated that if Wetland Sites 7, 10, 16, 21, and 32 are impacted, they

would require a mitigation ratio of 5.5:1.0 due to having a Floristic Quality Index (FQI) over 20 and/or

Mean C of 4.0 or higher. Best Management Practices would be employed during construction to minimize

the temporary impacts to wetlands including sediment and erosion control plans. Coordination with

USACE and IDNR on permitting would occur during final design. These commitments are included in the

Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

Nine sites were identified within the Project Study Area (as defined by concept plans for the Milwaukee

Airport Rail Station Second Platform project) and examined in the field and six were determined to be

wetlands. Details on the wetland analysis can be found in the Natural Resources Review in Appendix F.

Figure 3‐56 identifies the type, quality, and function of each wetland.

Figure 3‐56

Wetland Summary for the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform Project Study Area

Site

Number

Wetland

Community

Type

Area within

Project Study

Area (acre)

Floristic

Quality Index

(FQI)

Advanced

Identification

(ADID) Wetland?

Potential for Project‐Related

Impacts to Wetland

1 Shallow marsh,

wet meadow 0.32 13.3 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on the trackbed

only.

2A, 2B Shallow marsh,

wet meadow 0.22 11.6 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on the trackbed

only.

2C Shallow marsh,

shrub carr 0.32 9.4 No

Impact to wetland is probable.

Portions of Site 2C may be filled to

construct the platform and elevator

tower.

3 Wet meadow,

shrub carr 0.17 12.7 No

Temporary impacts to wetland are

possible during construction.

Construction of the platform would

occur several hundred feet north of

the wetland.

4 Wet meadow,

shrub carr 0.06 10.5 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on the trackbed

only.

5

Atypical

(stormwater

feature)

0.17 9.9 No

Impact to wetland is possible.

Construction of elevator tower would

occur adjacent to Site 5.

6

Atypical

(stormwater

feature)

0.07 6.0 No

Unanticipated. Construction in this

area would occur on the trackbed

only.

Figure 3‐57 depicts the wetlands adjacent to the Milwaukee Airport Rail station project. Best

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor

Draft Environmental Assessment

October 2016

3‐126

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                            

                             

       

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Management Practices would be employed during construction to minimize the temporary impacts on

wetlands including sediment and erosion control plans. Permitting with the USACE and Wisconsin DNR

for construction within a wetland would occur during final design. These commitments are included in the

Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐127
   

   

       

   

   

                  

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐57

Wetlands Adjacent to Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐128
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                         

                      

               

                       

                             

                          

                                   

                                 

                               

                             

                           

                                      

                               

                                  

                             

                                 

	 	 	

                         

                                   

                               

                             

                       

               

                               

   

                                   

   

                               

                                   

                                 

                                  

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.16.2.3 Consistency with Coastal Zone Management 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 authorized the National Coastal Zone Management Program,

which “provides the basis for protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing our nation’s diverse

coastal communities and resources.”74 This voluntary partnership between the federal government and

states is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Illinois DNR and the Wisconsin Department of Administration administer the state Coastal Management

Programs in Illinois and Wisconsin, respectively. These state agencies provide a review of proposed

projects within state coastal areas to ensure consistency with their Coastal Zone Management Programs.

The Illinois Coastal Area is defined as the area of land immediately adjacent to Lake Michigan along the

northeastern part of the State and a small portion of the Chicago River in downtown Chicago. The

Hiawatha Service route traverses the Illinois Coastal Area for a distance of 1.1 miles between Chicago

Union Station and Jefferson Street. The Illinois Coastal Management Program Office and the Illinois Office

of Water Resources (OWR) were consulted on whether a consistency determination would be required

for the Program. OWR responded that it will not conduct a federal consistency review for the project. .

The Wisconsin Department of Administration advised that it does not have any comments on the project

and that a coastalzone management consistency review would not be conducted for the project. On June

22, 2016, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program provided email confirmation that it does not have

any comments on the proposed project and will not conduct a federal consistency review for the project.

3.17 Section 4(f) Properties

Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned public parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl

refuges, or any publicly or privately owned historic siteslisted or eligible forlisting on the National Register

of Historic Places (NRHP). Special analyses are required for compliance with Section 4(f) of the

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 when a project proposes use of Section 4(f) property.

According to 23 CFR 774.11, a “use” of Section 4(f) property occurs:

 When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;

 When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation

purposes; or

 When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property, as determined by the criteria in 23

CFR 774.15.

Section 4(f) forbids the approval of projects that require the conversion of land from these protected

properties unless it can be demonstrated that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of land

from the property, and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting

from such use. The Administration may determine that the use of the property may have a de minimis

74 https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐129
   

   

       

   

   

                               

   

                               

                                 

                             

                               

       

                               

               

                               

                                        

           

                                

                               

                                

          

                                

           

                             

                                  

                                    

         

   

                                                            

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

impact, meaning the proposed use of Section 4(f) land would not adversely affect the Section 4(f)

resource.

A direct use occurs when there is a physical incorporation of land into a transportation facility. A

constructive use occurs when a project “does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the

project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify

a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are “substantially impaired” and the resource can no longer

perform its designated function”.75

3.17.1 Affected Environment

A variety of Section 4(f) properties are located within the Program Study Area including parks, recreation

areas, natural areas, trails, and historic properties.

3.17.1.1 Parks, Recreation Areas, and Natural Areas 

The Program Study Area contains more than 30 public and private parks, recreation areas, and natural

areas. In two cases, the Section 4(f)resource is partitioned on each side of the rail corridor, but no physical

connections exist between the areas.

County‐maintained forest preserves are adjacent to the rail corridor in Cook and Lake Counties in Illinois.

Approximately 10 miles of the corridor pass through or adjacent to a forest preserve. Several nature

preserves are also located within the corridor. Appendix I lists the parks, recreation areas, and natural

areas adjacent to the corridor.

3.17.1.2 Recreation Corridors 

Trails and greenways are located in close proximity to the corridor and some cross the corridor. These

recreation corridors are described further below.

3.17.1.2.1 The North Branch Trail System 

The 20‐mile Class I bicycle trail connects northwestern Cook County, Illinois with Lake County, Illinois

winding along the north branch of the Chicago River. The trail merges onto Dempster Street in Morton

Grove, IL for a short section and crosses the rail corridor at‐grade at Dempster Street. Figure 3‐58 depicts

the North Branch Trail System.76

75 49 United States Code Section 303 76 http://fpdcc.com/downloads/maps/trails/english/FPCC‐North‐Branch‐Trail‐Map‐10‐15.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐130
   

   

       

   

   

           

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐58

North Branch Trail System, Cook County, IL

Trail/Rail

Corridor At‐

Grade Crossing

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐131
   

   

       

   

   

                           

                                     

                                          

                                         

       

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.17.1.2.2 Middlefork Trail 

The Middle Fork Greenway runs north‐south through the length of the Middlefork Savanna Forest

Preserve in Lake Forest, IL from Illinois Route 60 to Illinois Route 176 where it connects with the North

Shore Bike Path. A portion of the rail corridor comes within 200 feet of the greenway on the north end of

the trail and within 100 feet of the greenway on the South Loop but it is buffered by forest. Figure 3‐59

depicts the Middlefork Trail.77

77 http://www.lcfpd.org/assets/1/7/MiddleforkTrailMap.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐132
   

   

       

   

   

         

                                       

                                      

                                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐59

Middlefork Trail, Lake County, IL

3.17.1.2.3 North Shore Bike Path 

The North Shore Bike Path is a partially paved 7.7 mile trail that runs in an east‐west direction adjacent to

Illinois Route 176. On the east end, it merges with the north‐south Robert McClory trail in Lake Bluff, IL.

On the west end, the North Shore Bike Path links to the north‐south Des Plaines River Trail in Libertyville,

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐133
   

   

       

   

   

                                           

                      

             

                               

                              

                                      

                                   

                             

                                                            

   

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

IL. The trail runs on the south side of Illinois Route 176 and crossesthe rail corridor on an overhead bridge.

Figure 3‐60 depicts the North Shore Bike Path in Lake County.78

Figure 3‐60

North Shore Bike Path, Lake County, IL

Overhead Bridge

Crossing of Rail

Corridor

3.17.1.2.4 Des Plaines River Trail 

The Des Plaines River Trail stretches 31 miles connecting Cook County forest preserves with local parks

and communities along the Des Plaines River with those in Lake County. Bridges and underpasses allow

travel through Lake County without crossing any major roads. A portion of this trail is within 50 feet of

the rail corridor between Skokie Highway in Gurnee, IL and North Mill Creek, where the trail shifts west.

Figure 3‐61 depicts the northern portion of the Des Plaines River Trail in Lake County.79

78 https://www.traillink.com/trail‐maps/north‐shore‐bike‐path.aspx 79 http://www.lcfpd.org/assets/1/7/DPR‐Trail‐Map.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐134
   

   

       

   

   

             

                                 

                           

                                    

     

     

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐61

Des Plaines River Trail, Lake County, IL

Portion of Trail

within 50 feet

of rail corridor

3.17.1.2.5 Oak Leaf Trail 

The Oak Leaf Trail is a system of off‐street greenways and on‐street marked lanes for recreational use

traversing approximately 100 miles of Milwaukee County. Users of the on‐street trails are primarily

bicyclists. The Oak Leaf Trail crosses the rail corridor in five locations, all of which are grade separated

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐135
   

   

       

   

   

                               

                                          

                                    

             

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

crossings; at W. Pittsburgh Avenue, 2nd Street, S. Kinnickinnic Avenue and S. Chase Avenue in Milwaukee,

WI and W. Drexel Avenue in Oak Creek, WI. Figure 3‐62 illustrates the portion of the Oak Leaf Trail in the

vicinity of the rail corridor in Milwaukee. Figure 3‐63 illustrates the portion of the Oak Leaf Trail that

crosses the rail corridor in Oak Creek.80

80 http://www.traillink.com/trail‐maps/oak‐leaf‐trail.aspx

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐136
   

   

       

   

   

         

   

   

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐62

Oak Leaf Trail, Milwaukee, WI

Undergrade

Bridge Crossings

of Rail Corridor

Milwaukee

Intermodal Station

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐137
   

   

       

   

   

            

                                     

                               

                                      

                                     

   

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐63

Oak Leaf Trail, Oak Creek, WI

Undergrade

Bridge Crossing

of Rail Corridor

3.17.1.2.6 Hank Aaron State Trail 

The Hank Aaron State Trail is a recreation trail that extends from the lakefront of Milwaukee to 94th Place

on the west side of Milwaukee, and is planned to eventually connect to the Milwaukee/Waukesha county

line. The Hank Aaron State Trail connects to several other trails including the Oak Leaf Trail and KK River

Trail. On‐street and off‐street paved routes are provided for the Hank Aaron State Trail. In the vicinity of

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐138
   

   

       

   

   

                                   

                                     

           

                                     

                                 

                                

                                                            

   

     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

the rail corridor, the Hank Aaron State Trail is operated on street, and crosses the corridor undergrade at

W. Pittsburgh Avenue and 2nd Street. Figure 3‐64 illustrates the east end of the Hank Aaron State Trail.81

Figure 3‐64

Hank Aaron State Trail, Milwaukee, WI

Undergrade

Bridge Crossings

of Rail Corridor

3.17.1.3 Waterways 

As discussed in Section 3.13 of this EA, one waterway adjacent to the project corridor has been listed on

the Nationwide Rivers Inventory: the Des Plaines River. The rail corridor runs adjacent to the Des Plaines

River from Grand Avenue in Gurnee, IL to the Illinois‐Wisconsin border, a distance of 9 track‐miles. The

81 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/parks/name/hankaaron/pdfs/hankaaronmap_print_friendly_3.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐139
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                                 

                                        

                      

                               

   

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

ORVs identified for the Des Plaines River are for scenery and recreation.

The corridor also crosses two rivers in Wisconsin, the Kinnickinnic and the Menomonee, which are part of

the Milwaukee Urban Water Trail. The trail is a canoe and kayak route that offers 25 miles of river access

through urban Milwaukee, using portions of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers.82

Figure 3‐65 shows the portion of the Milwaukee Urban Water Trail crossed by the rail corridor.

82 http://milwaukeeriverkeeper.org/

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐140
   

   

       

   

   

           

                                  

                             

                               

                           

                             

     

     

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐65

Milwaukee Urban Water Trail, Milwaukee, WI

Rail Corridor crossings

of Milwaukee Urban

Water Trail

3.17.1.4 Historic Properties 

Section 3.11 of this EA discusses the Cultural Resources located adjacent to or within the project corridor.

Figure 3‐32 identified four properties that are either NRHP or NRHP‐eligible resources. A “no historic

properties affected” or “no adverse effect” determination is made in accordance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, with concurrence in writing from the State or Tribal Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO). If either determination is made, the project effects would not be

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐141
   

   

       

   

   

               

	 	

                             

                                 

                              

                                

                                      

                                

                                      

               

                                   

                               

                                  

                                    

                           

                           

                               

                          

                           

                         

                       

                       

                            

                   

                     

       

	 	 	

                             

                                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

considered a “use” of a Section 4(f) property.

3.17.2 Potential Impacts

3.17.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not require the use of land from any Section 4(f) properties.

3.17.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies would not require the use of land from any Section 4(f)

properties. Property acquisition is included as part of two infrastructure projects: the Metra Fox Lake

Second Track project and the Milwaukee Airport Rail Station project. The Metra Fox Lake project proposes

to acquire 0.78 acres of property from three parcels in Green Oaks, Illinois. Two of the three parcels are

owned by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and one parcel is owned by Abbott Laboratories. There

are no Section 4(f) properties located in any of the three parcels. The Metra Fox Lake project would not

require the use of a Section 4(f) property.

The Milwaukee Airport Rail Station requires 0.07 acres of property acquisition on the west side of the CP

tracks to accommodate the construction of the new elevator tower, which would connect to the existing

station by an overhead bridge. The property is occupied by a demolition and earthwork company and is

owned through a living trust. There are no Section 4(f) properties located in the parcel. The Milwaukee

Airport Rail Station project would not require the use of a Section 4(f) property.

The Build Alternative also would not require temporary occupancy of any Section 4(f) properties.

The Build Alternative would not require the direct or constructive use of parks, recreation areas, natural

areas, recreation corridors, waterways, or historic properties within or adjacent to the corridor.

Construction of the improvement projects needed to accommodate the increase in service may cause

temporary impacts to these Section 4(f) properties including construction noise and dust. Mitigation

measures to address these temporary impacts include requiring construction equipment that meets

federal noise‐level standards, requiring contractors to be responsible for dust‐control measures, and

prohibiting the parking of vehicles and storage of materials on recreational properties. Additionally, Best

Management Practices for sedimentation control would be implemented to prevent construction

materials from entering adjacent waterways. These commitments are included in the Environmental

Commitments in Section 3.23.

3.18 Section 6(f) Properties

Section 6(f)(3) of Land and Water Conservation Act (LAWCA) requiresthat property acquired or developed

with LAWCA funds shall not be converted to anything other than public, outdoor, or recreation uses.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐142
   

   

       

   

   

                                     

                               

	 	

                             

                               

	 	 	 	 	

                                 

                                 

                               

                           

              

                             

                             

                                 

                           

                           

                               

                                 

     

	 	

                               

                                       

                              

                                 

                        

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.18.1 Affected Environment

A search of the U.S. Department of Interior’s website resulted in the finding that no public lands or waters

that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund are located within or adjacent to the corridor.83

3.18.2 Potential Impacts

3.18.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not require the use of land from any Section 6(f) properties.

3.18.2.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would not require the use of land from any Section 6(f) properties.

3.19 Energy Use and Climate Change

Climate change is any measured change in climate over a long time period. Climate change can be

attributed to different causes, such as natural factors (for example, changes in the sun’s energy or slow

changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun), natural processes within the climate system (for example,

changes in ocean circulation), or human activities that change the atmosphere’s makeup (for example,

burning fossil fuels) and the land surface.

Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels

to produce energy. Greenhouse gases trap energy in the Earth’s atmosphere and cause it to warm. While

this natural phenomenon, the greenhouse effect, supports life, the buildup of greenhouse gases can

change Earth's climate. In the U.S., energy‐related activities result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,

mostly in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half the energy‐

related emissions come from large stationary sources such as power plants, and in 2012, 28 percent came

from transportation (EPA, 2014).

3.19.1 Potential Impacts

3.19.1.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not increase GHGs from train traffic; however, as private auto and truck

use is expected to increase over the next 40 years in the corridor, there is anticipated to be an associated

increase in GHG emissions. The No‐Build Alternative would reequip the Hiawatha Service with new PRIIA

305 diesel locomotives, which are much more fuel efficient than the current P42 locomotives used on the

Hiawatha Service. Energy use would decrease in the No‐Build as compared to today.

83 https://www.doi.gov/lwcf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐143
   

   

       

   

   

                             

                                     

                                

                             

                                      

                                 

                                  

         

                       

                             

           

       

         

             

                               

                                 

                                

           

                           

                                    

                                     

                          

               

   

                                                            

                     

               

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.19.1.2 Build Alternative 

Energy impacts due to the implementation of the Build Alternative are estimated by calculating the

change in energy consumption due to the diversion of trips from auto, bus, and air to rail and operation

of three additional Hiawatha Service round trips per day. Energy consumption rates for auto, bus, and air

travel in the Chicago‐Milwaukee corridor were used to estimate the change in annual modal energy

consumption due to the diversion of trips from those modes to rail. Because each of the four modes uses

a different type of fuel, comparison of the energy consumed by each requires conversion to a common

base unit. The British Thermal Unit (BTU) is the measure used to compare the change in total annual

energy consumed by each mode.

According to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

the following energy consumption rates were used to calculate the change in annual consumption for

auto, intercity bus, and air modes:84

 Automobile: 3,843 BTUs per passenger‐mile

 Intercity Bus: 823 BTUs per passenger‐mile

 Air: 2,597 BTUs per passenger‐mile

Energy consumption for rail is calculated using forecasted fuel usage data provided by Amtrak as part of

their Route and Service Evaluation titled Route & Service Financial Evaluation for Ten Daily Round Trips on

Hiawatha Service dated August 15, 2014 (Revised August 26, 2014). The conversion of gallons to BTUs is

1 gallon to 137,381 BTUs.

Annual passenger‐miles for each travel mode are calculated by multiplying the number of diverted trips

by the length of each trip (assumed to be 86 miles). To determine the annual energy consumption savings

as a result of auto, air, and bus trips diverted to rail, the BTU rates were multiplied by the corresponding

annual passenger‐miles in 2019 and 2040. Figure 3‐66 summarizes these calculations and presents the

total annual energy consumption savings in 2019 and 2040.

84 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Table

4‐20: Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes, 2013 data

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐144
   

   

       

   

   

                     

           

   

   

   

   

       

           

   

   

   

   

       

                                 

                              

                             

                                

     

                         

   

     

   

         

        

                                   

                                         

                                  

                             

   

                         

                               

                  

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Figure 3‐66

Annual Energy Consumption Savings due to Diverted Trips in 2019 and 2040

Travel Mode Diverted Trips in 2019

Diverted Annual

Passenger‐Miles in

2019

Annual Energy

Consumption Savings

in 2019 (billion BTUs)

Air 196 16,856 0.044

Bus 716 61,576 0.051

Auto 100,188 8,616,168 33.1

Total 33.2

Travel Mode Diverted Trips in 2040

Diverted Annual

Passenger‐Miles in

2040

Annual Energy

Consumption Savings

in 2040 (billion BTUs)

Air 230 19,780 0.051

Bus 840 72,240 0.059

Auto 117,530 10,107,580 38.8

Total 39.0

The change in fuel consumption on the Hiawatha Service due to the increase in frequencies is calculated

from data provided by Amtrak in their Route and Service Evaluation report. Fuel consumption in the No‐

Build and Build Alternatives are not anticipated to increase between 2019 and 2040 because the

frequency of Amtrak service is not anticipated to change for either alternative. Figure 3‐67 shows the

change in fuel consumption.

Figure 3‐67

Change in Hiawatha Service Energy Consumption due to Build Alternative in 2019 and 2040

Alternative Fuel Consumption

(gallons)

Energy Consumption

(billion BTU)

Change in Annual

Energy Consumption

(billion BTUs)

No‐Build 798,898 109.8

Build 1,122,041 154.2 44.4

Although Figure 3‐66 shows a decrease in annual energy consumption of 32.8 BTUs in 2019 and 38.5 BTUs

in 2040 due to the diversion of air, bus, and auto tripsto rail, the energy consumption due to the operation

of additional frequencies, as shown in Figure 3‐67, is 44.4 BTUs. Operation of the Build Alternative would

cause a minimal net increase in energy consumption considering both Alternatives would be using new

energy efficient locomotives.

During construction of the Build Alternative, additional energy would be expended beyond what would

be used for normal rail operations. This additional energy would be consumed on a short‐term basis

during construction of improvements required to implement the Build Alternative.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐145
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 	 		

                           

                          

                         

                            

                                   

                             

     

	 	

                           

                               

                                    

                     

                

               

                               

                                       

                                       

                               

                                  

                                 

                             

                                 

                             

                               

                              

                                 

                     

               

                                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.20 Visual and Aesthetic Quality

3.20.1 Affected Environment

The visual environment of the Program corridor ranges from undeveloped agricultural land and dense

forest preserve to industrial development and urban districts. In the century following the construction

of the existing rail corridor, the Chicago and Milwaukee urbanized areas have expanded significantly,

prompting almost continuous development along the rail line. Throughout all this change, the railroad

has remained a constant. While the quantity and type of trains operating in the corridor have changed,

the physical footprint of the railroad, and the associated visual quality, has remained largely unchanged

since the 1920s.

3.20.2 Potential Impacts

3.20.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact the existing visual quality along the corridor.

3.20.2.2 Build Alternative 

The increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies would not impact the visual quality of the existing rail

corridor since the enhanced service would run on the same route it does today. There are three projects

whose proposed infrastructure improvements could impact the visual quality for the areas immediately

surrounding the projects. These projects are discussed below.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1

The UPRR Siding Extension Design Alternative 1 proposes the construction of 4,000 feet of retaining wall

to support the new track on the west side of the existing UP mainlines starting at the Willow Road bridge

and heading south. The retaining wall would vary in height from 10 feet to 20 feet. A residential

neighborhood lies adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way south of the Shermer Road bridge on the west

side of the UP mainlines. A thick grove of trees exists between the neighborhood and the rail right‐of‐

way, essentially blocking the view of the existing rail embankment and trains operating on the tracks from

the neighborhood. It is possible that the neighborhood could be visually impacted by the proposed

retaining wall, particularly in the winter when foliage would be absent from the trees buffering the rail

right‐of‐way. Instead of viewing a dirt embankment, residents would see a concrete retaining wall. The

proposed retaining wall would be located approximately 15 feet closer to the neighborhood than the top

of the existing embankment and would look less “natural” than the existing embankment. The retaining

wall would be designed in close coordination with the public to minimize visual impacts as much as

possible. This commitment is included in the Environmental Commitments in Section 3.23.

UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 2

Design Alternative 2 proposesthe construction of 900 feet of retaining wall on the westside of the existing

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐146
   

   

       

   

   

                                       

                                

                             

                                      

                             

                                  

                               

                              

                              

                           

   

                                   

                                        

                         

           

                                     

                                  

                                

                               

                       

	 	

                        

                     

	 	 	 	 	

                           

                             

                        

                                 

                              

                               

                  

                           

                                                            

           

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

UP mainlines and 3,600 feet of retaining wall on the east side of the existing UP mainlines to support the

new track construction. As described under UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20 Design Alternative 1, there is

a residential neighborhood that lies adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way south of the Shermer Road

bridge on the west side of the UP mainlines. A thick grove of trees exists between the neighborhood and

the rail right‐of‐way, essentially blocking the view of the existing rail embankment and trains operating

on the tracks from the neighborhood. It is possible that the neighborhood could be visually impacted by

the proposed retaining wall, particularly in the winter when foliage would be absent from the trees

buffering the rail right‐of‐way. Instead of viewing a dirt embankment, residents would see a concrete

retaining wall. The retaining wall would be designed in close coordination with the public to minimize

visual impacts as much as possible. This commitment is included in the Environmental Commitments in

Section 3.23.

A smaller section of residences on the west side of the tracks would potentially be impacted by Design

Alternative 2 than by Design Alternative 1. Land use on the east side of the tracks is industrial, which is

anticipated to be less sensitive to visual impacts than residential land uses.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform

A platform is proposed to be constructed on the west side of the CP mainlines at the existing Milwaukee

Airport Rail Station. Elevator towers would be constructed on both sides of the platform and an overhead

pedestrian bridge connect the two towers. Due to adjacent industrial and airport land uses and because

there are several overhead highway bridges in the vicinity, the construction of these station structures is

not anticipated to impact the visual quality of the adjacent land uses.

3.21 Other Construction Impacts

Construction impacts are integrated throughout the environmental resource sections above. The section

below discusses only impacts related to invasive species and noxious weeds.

3.21.1 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds

The Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (an organization within the Midwest Region of the

USGS) defines invasive species as “the subset of nonnative organisms that cause undesirable changes in

the invaded ecosystem, spread widely, become overly abundant, or reduce native organisms.” Human

activities like “moving people and things from place to place and cultivating plans and animals result in

the accidental or purposeful introduction of species outside their native range.”85 USGS lists Asian Red

Carp, Eurasian Ruffe, Reed Canary Grass, Round Goby, Sea Lamprey, and Zebra Mussels asinvasive species

impacting Illinois. These species may be present within the corridor.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) lists 10 plantspecies

85 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species.html

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐147
   

   

       

   

   

                         

                              

                           

         

                           

                                 

                             

                                

                               

   

                               

                                  

                               

                             

                                  

               

                           

                     

                             

                                

                                  

                   

	 	 		

                            

                                     

                            

                                 

                           

                               

                           

                                                            

         

     

         

         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

as Illinois State‐listed Noxious Weeds: common ragweed, giant ragweed, marijuana, musk thistle, Canada

thistle, kudzu (2 varieties), perennialsowthistle, Columbus grass, and Johnson grass.86 NRCS listsfive plant

species in Wisconsin that are Noxious Weeds: Canada thistle, field bindweed, leafy spurge, purple

loosestrife, and multiflora rose.87

Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties are identified as Emerald Ash Borer quarantined areas in

Wisconsin. Quarantines are issued by DATCP for counties where an Emerald Ash Borer find is confirmed.

During initial consultation with Wisconsin DNR, the potential for spreading the Emerald Ash Borer beetle

for the three projects in Wisconsin was identified. Coordination with DATCP is required for the removal

of ash material, the emerald ash borer, and hardwood debris out of the project areas to non‐quarantined

locations.88

Cook and Lake Counties are identified as Gypsy Moth quarantined areas in Illinois. The quarantine

requires all nursery stock and firewood being shipped out of these countiesto be inspected and certified.89

During a conference call on June 17, 2016, the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDA) explained that

during construction of any of the improvement projects in Illinois, a visual inspection would occur to

determine if any gypsy moth egg masses are located in the project areas. The contractor would report

the finding to IDA and eradicate the egg.

During construction, best management practices would be used to control the spread of invasive species

and noxious weeds. Measures include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment,

commitments to ensure the use of invasive‐free mulches, top soils and seed mixes, and eradication

strategies. Landscaping and erosion control included in the project would avoid the use of species listed

as noxious weeds. Precautions would be taken to ensure the project does not result in noxious weed

and/or invasive species impacts to Natural Areas and Nature Preserves.

3.22 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

CEQ regulations require that indirect and cumulative impacts be evaluated for a proposed action. CEQ

regulations define indirect impact as those that “are caused by the action and are later in time or farther

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”90

CEQ defines cumulative impacts as those that “result from the incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency

86 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=17 87 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=55 88 Wisconsin DNR, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/NR40Permits.html 89 Illinois Department of Agriculture, https://www.agr.state.il.us/gypsy‐moth/ 90 40 CFR Part 1508.8, https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.8

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐148
   

   

       

   

   

                            

                         

                       

                          

                             

                            

                   

                     

                               

                             

                          

                                 

                                 

   

	 	

                             

                                

                              

                          

                                 

                              

                               

                                 

                                 

   

   

                                                            

         

                             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

(Federal or non‐Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”91

According to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), indirect

effects include induced growth and related environmental impacts. An analysis of induced growth effects

involves “tracing the chain of causation connecting a transportation project to future land use changes

and then to the impacts of those changes.”92 The following questions should be considered:

 Does the project have the potential to increase mobility and/or accessibility?

 Is the increased accessibility likely to cause changes in development patterns?

 What impacts are likely to result from changes in development patterns that are caused by the

project?

AASHTO explains that an assessment of cumulative impacts “focuses on the combined effects of the

proposed action and other actions on specific resources.” The cumulative impact analysis summarizes

the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action on a resource; describes other actions and their

effects on the resource; and estimates the combined effects of the proposed action and other actions on

the resource.

3.22.1 Potential Impacts

3.22.1.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No‐Build Alternative, Hiawatha Service would continue to operate at existing levels of service

on the existing rail infrastructure. The No‐Build Alternative would not improve the level and quality of

passenger rail service in the corridor. Congestion on corridor highways and roadways would continue to

worsen. Delays to freight and commuter rail in the corridor would also continue.

3.22.1.2 Build Alternative 

3.22.1.2.1 Indirect Impacts 

The Build Alternative was examined for indirect impacts within the project corridor over a 20 year horizon

period. Specifically, the Build Alternative was assessed for the potential to increase accessibility, for the

potential to induce growth, and for the potential to impact sensitive resources. The Build Alternative

would not increase accessibility within the corridor in that travel times would not change and new stations

are not proposed to be added to the corridor, but it would provide more travel options and transportation

choice.

91 40 CFR Part 1508.7, https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.7 92 AASHTO Practitioner’s Handbook, Assessing Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA, April 12, 2011

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐149
   

   

       

   

   

       

                         

                              

                        

                               

                   

     

                                 

                             

                             

                            

                                  

                              

                              

                                 

                               

                           

                          

                    

                          

                              

                         

                               

                         

                       

                       

         

                               

                                  

                                                            

     

             

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Indirect Impacts on Passenger Stations

Indirect development may occur near Hiawatha Service stations due to the increase in frequencies

planned as part of the Build Alternative. Growth around transit stations is referred to as transit‐oriented

development (TOD). As defined by the Federal Transit Administration, TOD creates “compact, mixed‐use

communities near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services.”93 The potential for

indirect TOD at each Hiawatha Service station is discussed below.

Chicago Union Station

Amtrak uses Chicago Union Station at Canal and Madison Streets asits central passenger terminal for long

distance trains. The station has connections with CTA buses, Metra commuter rail and CTA ‘El’,

Greyhound, Coach USA, and Megabus service, and is located blocks from other Greyhound and Indian

Trial connections. Chicago Union Station services more than ten different Amtrak lines passing though as

well as more than ten Metra rail lines. The areas surrounding the station are completely developed and

it is unlikely that additional Hiawatha Service traffic would create land use changes in downtown Chicago.

Glenview

The Glenview Amtrak station is located in downtown Glenview. The station has municipal parking lots

adjacent to the platform and along the rail right‐of‐way and is adjacent to retail, commercial, office, and

residential units. The Village of Glenview released its Comprehensive Plan in July 2016. The plan provides

a vision and framework for Glenview’s future including policy recommendations for land use throughout

the Village. The land use immediately surrounding the station is zoned as residential, commercial, and

government. Future zoning re‐designates the commercial and residential as Downtown Development,

which creates a pedestrian‐oriented district that allows a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. The

plan also identified the Downtown District as an area with opportunity for redevelopment. Working in

connection with the 2006 Downtown Revitalization Plan, the Village will support redevelopment projects

“which include a mix of uses near the train station; street‐level activities along Glenview Road; parks,

plazas, and enhanced environmental features; and connectivity to adjacent properties that support a live‐

work‐play philosophy.” The Village will also “encourage businesses to locate in vacant or underutilized

lots, buildings or storefronts.”94 Opportunities are available for transit‐oriented development in the

Downtown Development zone of Glenview.

Sturtevant

The Sturtevant Amtrak station is located in the northern part of Sturtevant adjacent to zoned commercial

areas to the west. East of the railroad tracks and station are high density residential and commercial

93 Federal Transit Administration, https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/funding‐finance‐resources/transit‐

oriented‐development/transit‐oriented‐development 94 Village of Glenview 2016 Comprehensive Plan: http://www.glenviewlookingforward.com/

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐150
   

   

       

   

   

                                  

                       

        

                                   

                                    

                             

                                  

                                

                  

                               

                         

  

  

                            

                              

                       

                     

                                

                                 

                              

                                

                               

                           

                     

                      

              

                           

                           

                                   

                         

                           

                          

                    

                                                            

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

zones. Vacant property exists immediately west and south of the station in the commercial zone.

Opportunities are available for transit‐oriented development in the area of the station.

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station

The Milwaukee Airport Rail Station is located on the far western edge of the airport grounds in the

southeastern portion of the City of Milwaukee. The station is bound by the railroad to the west, the

Airport Spur highway to the north, industrial uses to the south, and the General Mitchell International

Airport to the east. The City produced its Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Side of Milwaukee in

October 2008. The area surrounding the airport and the station islocated in the Airport Gateway Business

Area District. The Comprehensive Plan identifies redevelopment opportunities in the Airport Gateway

Business Area District, but because the station is not located adjacent to any of the proposed

opportunities, there may not be a direct link between increased Amtrak service and transit‐oriented

development.95

Milwaukee

Amtrak’s passenger terminal is the Milwaukee Intermodal Station in downtown Milwaukee. The City of

Milwaukee adopted its ambitious Downtown Comprehensive Plan in 2010. To meet the broad goals of

making downtown Milwaukee “more centered, place‐oriented, connected, and dense,” the Plan identifies

numerous opportunities for redevelopment in Milwaukee’s Central Business District and provides a

framework for investment in the area of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station and nearby. The station is

envisioned to be a Gateway to Milwaukee because it is the Milwaukee stop for Amtrak service and

intercity bus service. The Plan understands that the current built environment around the station “does

not lend itself as a destination or a place in which positive first impressions are made.” The redeveloped

“Station Plaza” is imagined as an expanded intermodal station campus that links a new streetcar network

to intercity rail and intraregional bus services and to already‐developed commercial and residential sites

in the area. The Plan encourages office, residential, restaurants, neighborhood, and commuter‐

supporting land uses.96 Opportunities are available for transit‐oriented development near the station.

Summary of Indirect Impacts on Passenger Stations

In Glenview, the downtown area was re‐zoned to provide pedestrian‐oriented flow and housing and

commercial redevelopment. Glenview’s Plan does not discuss enhanced Amtrak service, so it can be

assumed that induced growth in Glenview is not tied to the Build Alternative;rather, the growth isinduced

by Glenview’s downtown amenities and walkability. The City of Milwaukee proposed major

redevelopment in its Central Business District, including a Station Plaza, which would incorporate the

existing Milwaukee Intermodal Station with a new streetcar network and intraregional bus system. The

Plan encourages office, residential, restaurants, neighborhood, and commuter‐supporting land uses. As

95 http://city.milwaukee.gov/AreaPlans/Southeast.htm#.V5o7TFWDFBc 96 http://city.milwaukee.gov/DowntownPlan#.V5o07lWDFBc

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐151
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                                  

                                

                                  

        

                                  

                                  

                     

                             

  

                              

                                 

                           

                       

           

                             

                               

                               

                                     

                           

                               

                 

                           

                         

         

                             

             

                               

                     

                     

                               

   

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

in Glenview, there is potential for induced growth near the Milwaukee Intermodal Station, but it is not

tied to the Build Alternative. At the Sturtevant Station, vacant property exists adjacent to the station in

the commercialzone. It is possible that the Build Alternative could induce growth and attract commercial

businesses to the area. At all of these stations, expansion of the Hiawatha Service is compatible with

proposed land use plans.

It is unlikely that the Build Alternative would induce growth near Chicago Union Station. The area around

the station is completely built out, leaving little opportunity for growth due to the project. The Milwaukee

Airport Rail Station is completely separated from residential and redevelopment opportunities identified

in the Comprehensive Plan, and would likely not experience induced growth related to the Build

Alternative.

The CEQ requires an indirect effects analysis to consider effects that are “likely” or “probable.” Because

the indirect impact on development near stations is not directly tied to the Build Alternative and because

impacts on the Chicago‐area rail network cannot be quantitatively and locationally defined, the indirect

impact on sensitive resources due to the Build Alternative would be speculative.

Indirect Impacts on the Rail Network

The Build Alternative could result in positive indirect impacts on the Chicago‐area freight and commuter

rail network. Due to the significant improvements proposed to be constructed as part of the Build

Alternative, capacity on the project corridor would be increased, allowing for fewer freight delays in the

corridor. As discussed in Chapter 2 of the EA, each of the rail lines comprising the Chicago‐area rail

network are intrinsically tied together; capacity improvements on the project corridor could induce a

ripple effect of reduced freight delays on other rail lines, including the UP Milwaukee Subdivision, which

crosses the project corridor at A‐20 in Northbrook, IL.

Construction ofrail infrastructure in the project corridor would create indirect economic impacts. Indirect

impacts accrue from construction and operation‐related wages recycled in local economies for the day‐

to‐day needs of employees.

These impacts are a result of construction and operation‐related wages that are recycled in local

economies for the day‐to‐day needs of employees.

3.22.1.2.2 Cumulative Impacts 

It is anticipated that the Build Alternative would result in negligible cumulative impacts on the physical

environment, ecological systems, and the human environment for the following reasons:

	 The Build Alternative proposes infrastructure projects at various locations throughout the

corridor and a majority of the impacts would be within the existing right‐of‐way and in previously

disturbed areas.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐152
   

   

       

   

   

                                 

                             

     

                         

                                  

                               

                       

                           

                         

                         

                             

                              

                            

                                

                             

                         

                               

       

                           

                                 

                              

                               

                   

                             

                         

                           

                          

                           

                               

             

   

                                                            

                         

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

 There are no severe noise, vibration, or air quality impacts anticipated as a result of the Build

Alternative and would have a no cumulative effect when combined with any other project impact

within the corridor.

 Any new service‐related impacts outside the existing track right‐of‐way would be narrow, linear,

and distributed over a relatively long distance (86 miles). As a result, the impact to any given

resource within any given area is expected to be relatively small and would have a negligible

cumulative impact when combined with any other project impact in the corridor.

Primary projects associated with cumulative impacts relative to the Build Alternative are the completion

of the development of the Midwest Regional Rail System, construction of passenger flow improvements

at Chicago Union Station, and the procurement of the Midwest’s Next Generation equipment.

The buildout of the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) would provide 2,000 miles of intercity

passenger rail throughout the Midwest. The MWRRS would operate over existing track and within existing

rights‐of‐way and/or within previously disturbed areas. The MWRRS is expected to provide service to

motorists who would otherwise travel within the Midwest by automobile. The shift in travel mode is

anticipated to provide an overall cumulative benefit in terms of air quality (physical environment) by

reducing overall vehicle emissions and on the transportation network (human environment) by reducing

congestion. The cumulative effect of adding these impacts to the impacts associated with the Build

Alternative would be positive.

The construction of improvements at Chicago Union Station would “open up the station’s concourse area

to improve passenger flows and to make it easier for passengers to navigate through the station.”97 The

construction is limited to track and platform areas and to the station itself. Because the improvements

would occur within the existing right‐of‐way, the cumulative effect of adding these impacts to the impacts

associated with the Build Alternative are anticipated to be minimal.

As part of the Next Generation equipment procurement, Wisconsin would receive two Tier IV locomotives

that would replace the Amtrak‐owned P42 locomotives that are currently employed on the Hiawatha

Service. The use of next generation locomotives would reduce fuel consumption, operating and

maintenance costs, and locomotive emissions for the Hiawatha Service. The cumulative impact of this

project combined with the Build Alternative is negligible because while fuel consumption and emissions

would be reduced using the new locomotives, an additional trainset is required to operate the Build

Alternative, which negates any positive cumulative impact.

97 Union Station Master Plan Study – Stage 2, Technical Memorandum No. 1, http://www.unionstationmp.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2013/12/Union‐Station‐Master_Plan_Tech‐Memo‐1‐FINAL‐12‐20‐2013.pdf

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

3‐153
   

   

       

   

   

	 	 	

                     

                                  

                     

                         

   

       

     

   

       

   

         

   

                       

                     

     

                     

                     

                       

                   

                         

                     

                         

                     

                       

           

                 

                   

               

                     

                 

                 

                 

                    

             

         

   

     

       

   

                   

                   

                     

                   

                 

                     

               

                 

             

             

                     

                      

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

3.23 Environmental Commitments and Mitigation

An environmental commitment is a documented promise or obligation concerning an environmental issue

made by WisDOT and IDOT to an entity outside WisDOT and IDOT. Through federal and state project

reviews, environmental commitments have been identified. Figure 3‐68 identifies to whom the

commitment was made, lists the source document containing the commitment, and summarizes the

commitment.

Figure 3‐68

Summary of Environmental Commitments

Commitment‐

Identifying Agency Source Document Commitment

Illinois Department of

Natural Resources

Natural Resource Review for

the Rondout Extension/Metra

Fox Lake Second Track Project;

Appendix E

No work shall be conducted under the I‐94 overpass from May 1

through August 15 of any construction year to protect nesting birds

under the overpass.

If the construction work under the I‐94 overpass cannot be started

until after May 1, netting or other obstructions should be placed

under the overpass prior to April 1 to prevent birds from nesting

under the overpass but so as not to interfere with train traffic.

To protect the state and federally listed Northern Long‐eared Bat,

trees five inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) to be

cut within the project area shall be clearly flagged and/or marked

and shall not be cut between the dates of April 1 through October

14.

To protect the state‐listed Iowa darter, there shall be no instream

work at the North Branch to the Chicago River bridge during the

dates April 1 through June 30.

Strict adherence to best management practices for erosion and

sedimentation control should be used to minimize the possibility of

any adverse impacts to aquatic species, streams, Middlefork

Savanna Nature Preserve, and wetlands in the vicinity of this project

action.

Direct coordination is needed at the appropriate time with Illinois

Nature Preserves Commission staff to ensure avoidance of any

impacts, direct or indirect, to the Middlefork Savanna Nature

Preserve, up to and including permitting by INPC if necessary.

Contact Kelly Neal, INPC Stewardship Project Manager,

Kelly.neal@illinois.gov or by phone at 217/524‐2415.

Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources

WDNR Initial Project Review;

Appendix F

To protect developing fish eggs and substrate for aquatic organisms,

all in‐stream work that could adversely impact water quality should

be undertaken between June 15 and February 28 of the calendar

year.

The project should either utilize measures to prevent nesting (e.g.,

remove unoccupied nests during the non‐nesting season and install

barrier netting prior to May 1) or construction should occur only

between August 30 and May 1 (non‐nesting season).

Adequate precautions should be taken to prevent transporting or

introducing invasive species via construction equipment, as

provided under NR 40, Wisconsin Administrative Code.

During final design, DNR requires submittal of the results of a 100‐

year flood analysis for any new structures. If the new structures

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 3‐154

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

       

                       

               

               

             

                     

              

                 

               

   

                   

                       

   

             

                  

                 

         

   

   

   

     

               

           

                     

                 

                   

             

     

                 

                      

                     

                   

         

     

   

     

     

                 

       

     

   

     

         

                   

                 

             

            

                   

                 

      

             

                   

     

         

                       

                  

                 

     

           

                 

         

             

               

                   

          

             

             

       

         

                     

                   

                     

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Commitment‐

Identifying Agency Source Document Commitment

would create an increase of 0.01 feet or more in the 100‐year

backwater condition, DNR requires that all affected upstream

landowners be notified, appropriate legal arrangements made, and

the local floodplain ordinance must be amended.

The project has the potential for spreading the Emerald Ash Borer

beetle. Coordination with the Wisconsin Department of

Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection is required if certain

materials are removed from EAB quarantined areas to non‐

quarantined areas.

An Erosion Control Implementation Plan for the projects must be

developed by the contractor and submitted to the DNR prior to the

preconstruction conference.

WDNR must be notified during construction if asbestos‐containing

material is found during inspection. The contractor would follow

the DNRs regulations on asbestos abatement for removal and

disposal of asbestos contained material.

Wisconsin Historic

Preservation Office

Wisconsin SHPO Concurrence

Letter; Appendix C

Regarding the Muskego Yard Signalization project: A qualified

archaeologist would monitor the construction‐related ground

disturbing activities; site should not be used for borrow or waste

disposal; site area not currently capped by asphalt/concrete should

not be used for staging of personnel, equipment and/or supplies.

US Fish and Wildlife

Service

Documentation of USFWS

Coordination; Appendix G

Provide wetland maps near project sites to ensure proper

mitigation for the EPFO. FRA will work with USFWS to identify

mitigation for existing herbicide damage and develop a plan for the

monitoring of EPFO prior to construction to ensure known locations

of EPFO can be avoided.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and

Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources

EA Section 3.9

State regulations for hazardous materials would be followed during

construction of improvement projects.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and

Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources

EA Sections 3.13, 3.14, and

3.16

Potential impacts to streams, water quality, and wetlands would be

minimized through the use and enforcement of Erosion and

Sedimentation Control policies and National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System permits that employ Best Management

Practices (e.g., silt fences, check dams, and sediment basins) and

construction activities would comply with all spill prevention control

and countermeasures requirements. Permanent Best Management

Practices installed following construction (e.g., permanent seeding

and use of native vegetation) would further reduce impacts.

Illinois Department of

Natural Resources EA Section 3.15

At the time of final design, a 100‐year flood analysis would be

completed for any new structures. Floodplain mitigation would be

identified as needed and coordinated with local officials.

Local jurisdictions who

own Section 4(f)

Properties

EA Section 3.17

Mitigation measures to address temporary impacts to Section 4(f)

properties during construction include requiring construction

equipment that meets federal noise‐level standards, requiring

contractors to be responsible for dust‐control measures, and

prohibiting the parking of vehicles and storage of materials on

recreational properties. Additionally, Best Management Practices

for sedimentation control would be implemented to prevent

construction materials from entering adjacent waterways.

Village of Glenview and

Adjacent Property

Owners

EA Section 3.20

The retaining wall proposed for the UPRR Siding Extension at A‐20

Design Alternatives 1 and 2 would be designed in close coordination

with the public to minimize visual impacts as much as possible.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 3‐155

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

   

       

   

   

       

   

       

   

     

                   

                     

         

           

               

                  

             

           

                  

                   

                      

                       

                 

Chapter 3

Environmental Resources Analysis

Commitment‐

Identifying Agency Source Document Commitment

Wisconsin Department

of Agriculture, Trade and

Consumer Protection

EA Section 3.21

Coordination with DATCP is required for the removal of ash

material, the emerald ash borer, and hardwood debris out of the

project areas to non‐quarantined locations.

Illinois Department of

Agriculture EA Section 3.21

During construction, best management practices would be used to

control the spread of invasive species and noxious weeds.

Measures include the inspection and cleaning of construction

equipment, commitments to ensure the use of invasive‐free

mulches, top soils and seed mixes, and eradication strategies.

Landscaping and erosion control included in the project would avoid

the use of species listed as noxious weeds. Precautions would be

taken to ensure the project does not result in noxious weed and/or

invasive species impacts to Natural Areas and Nature Preserves.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 3‐156

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

     

       

   

   

	 	 	

                   

                         

                           

                          

                         

   

	 	

                            

           

                       

             

       

                     

                         

   

	 	 	

                           

                              

                         

                       

                              

  

                         

                              

             

   

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

4 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the efforts and events conducted for agency coordination, stakeholder

coordination, public meetings, tribal coordination, and public involvement during the development of the

Chicago‐Milwaukee EA. The purpose of the coordination effort was to present the process, provide

information, and gather input from stakeholders. Comments and concerns were incorporated into the

development and analysis of the project purpose and need, alternatives analysis, and potential

environmental impacts.

4.2 Project Team

A project team was formed to guide the Environmental Assessment process through its completion.

Members of the project team include:

 Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Illinois Department of Transportation as lead state

agencies

 Federal Railroad Administration as lead federal agency

 Amtrak as cooperating agency

Technical, operations, engineering, and environmental experts from the partner agencies provided on‐

going collaboration on the project, meeting bi‐weekly to discuss project issues and review project

documents.

4.3 Railroad Stakeholder Working Group

Initial railroad coordination occurred with CP, UP, and Metra (Chicago’s commuter rail operator) to

provide an overview of the project and discuss the project‐level alternatives analysis. As purpose and

need and alternatives analyses progressed, a formal working group consisting of railroad stakeholder

operations personnel was created to provide streamlined coordination among the railroads and the

project team. A Railroad Stakeholder Working Group wasformed in early 2013 consisting of the following

members:

 CP

 UP

 Metra

Meetings were held throughout the EA development process with the railroad stakeholders. Some

meetings included all members of the working group, while others only included a few members. Figure

4‐1 lists the railroad stakeholder working group meetings.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐1
   

     

       

   

   

     

                         

                 

               

           

                                      

         

                                   

       

                         

                   

                               

       

                     

   

                   

             

             

           

         

           

         

       

       

                   

                   

                         

       

                   

                   

                         

                         

     

         

         

         

	 	 	

                             

                          

   

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Figure 4‐1

Railroad Stakeholder Working Group Meetings

Date Coordination Discussion

January 25, 2013 CP, UP, Metra, Amtrak, FRA, WisDOT,

IDOT Initial railroad stakeholder meeting

February 19, 2013 CP, Metra, Amtrak, FRA, WisDOT, IDOT

Working Group meeting #1 – outline path forward

for identifying current and future capacity

constraints

April 5, 2013 CP, UP, Metra, Amtrak, FRA, WisDOT,

IDOT

Working Group meeting #2 –identify current and

future capacity constraints and infrastructure

improvements to mitigate the constraints

August 14 and August 30,

2013 CP, Metra, Amtrak, FRA, WisDOT, IDOT Discuss Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) simulations ofcorridor produced by CP

September 20, 2013 CP, WisDOT Discuss RTC modeling and get responses to FRA

questions

October 11, 2013 UP Discuss UP Siding Extension at A‐20 project

December 16, 2013 CP, UP, Metra, Amtrak, FRA, WisDOT Meeting to update railroad stakeholders on the

status of the EA development

March 13, 2014 CP, WisDOT Meeting to discuss proposed improvements at

Muskego Yard

May 9, 2014 CP, WisDOT Discuss Muskego Yard concept plans

September 4, 2014 CP, Metra, WisDOT, IDOT

Discuss proposed improvements for the Metra Fox

Lake Second Track project, Rondout Siding

Extension project, and Muskego Yard

September 22, 2014 CP, WisDOT, IDOT

Discuss existing operations and proposed

improvements needed between Milwaukee

Intermodal Station and Cut‐Off

January 30, 2015 CP, WisDOT Discuss phasing of improvement projects

February 27, 2015 CP, WisDOT Further discussion on Muskego Yard

June 17, 2015 CP, FRA, WisDOT, IDOT In‐person meeting to update CP on infrastructure

improvements and phasing plan

July 7, 2015 CP, WisDOT Further discussion on Muskego Yard

August 6, 2015 CP, WisDOT Further discussion on Muskego Yard

September 1, 2015 Metra, FRA, WisDOT, IDOT Discuss Metra’s proposed interim improvements at

Rondout

October 9, 2015 Metra, FRA, WisDOT, IDOT In‐person meeting to discuss Metra’s proposed

interim improvements at Rondout

January 7, 2016 CP, WisDOT

Discussed path forward for completing

Environmental Assessment and additional Muskego

Yard improvements

4.4 Agency and Tribal Coordination

Potential agency stakeholders were identified early in the study and included agencies at the federal,

state, county, and local levels. Figure 4‐2 lists the stakeholders contacted for project participation.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐2
   

     

       

   

   

   

                         

     

                         

     

                           

     

                       

       

                           

     

                       

     

               

     

     

     

     

         

     

   

       

     

       

   

       

       

                     

     

                       

     

                 

     

       

                        

                 

     

                   

     

     

                      

               

       

     

               

       

   

     

                       

     

                       

     

       

                          

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Figure 4‐2

Agency Stakeholders

Agency Stakeholders Contact Person Address

Federal

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Rebecca Graser 20711 Watertown Road, Suite F

Waukesha, WI 53186

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Anthony Jernigan 20711 Watertown Road, Suite F

Waukesha, WI 53186

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Leesa Beal 111 North Canal Street, Suite 600

Chicago, IL 60606

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Peter Fasbender 2661 Scott Tower Drive

New Franken, WI 54229

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Shawn Cirton 1250 S. Grove Avenue, Suite 103

Barrington, IL 60010

U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District Mr. Scot Striffler 1240 E. Ninth Street

Cleveland, OH 44199

U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. Nick Chevance

National Park Service

601 Riverfront Drive

Omaha, NE 68102

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5 Mr. Kenneth Westlake

NEPA Implementation Section Mail

Code E‐19

77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Federal Aviation Administration, Great

Lakes Region Agency Representative 2300 East Devon AvenueDes Plaines, IL 60018

State

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources Ms. Kristina Betzold 2300 N. MLK Drive

Milwaukee, WI 53212

DNR Liaison in Kenosha Mr. Craig Webster 141 NW Barstow Room 180

Waukesha, WI 53188

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation

Office Ms. Kimberly Cook 816 State Street

Madison, WI 53706

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,

Trade and Consumer Protection Ms. Alice Halpin 2811 Agriculture Drive

Madison, WI 53718

Wisconsin Historical Society Mr. Michael Stevens 816 State Street

Madison, WI 53706

Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics Mr. Justin Hetland PO Box 7914

Madison, WI 53707

Wisconsin Department of

Administration (Coastal Zone) Ms. Kate Angel PO Box 8944

Madison, WI 53708

Natural Resources Conservation

Service Ms. Brandi Richter 1012 Vine Street

Union Grove, WI 53182

Illinois Department of Transportation

– Bureau of Design and Environment Dr. Ken Runkle

2300 South Dirksen Parkway

Room 330

Springfield, IL 62764

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Ms. Anne Haaker 1 Old State Capitol Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Mr. David Halpin 1 Old State Capitol Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Illinois Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Land & Water Resources Ms. Terry Savko State Fairgrounds

PO Box 19281

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐3
   

     

       

   

   

   

     

                   

     

                     

     

                     

     

                     

     

           

       

       

       

     

     

       

   

       

       

   

     

     

       

       

   

     

         

           

             

         

     

     

     

                 

       

     

     

                 

       

     

     

       

   

       

       

       

     

           

       

                 

     

                             

     

                         

       

     

     

             

     

     

       

     

     

       

                        

             

         

         

     

                     

     

                     

     

             

       

         

     

                       

     

                     

     

                  

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Agency Stakeholders Contact Person Address

Springfield, IL 62794

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency Mr. Alan Keller 1021 N. Grand Avenue EastSpringfield, IL 62794

Illinois Department of Natural

Resources Mr. Steve Hamer 1 Natural Resources WaySpringfield, IL 62702

Illinois Department of Natural

Resources Mr. Patrick Malone 1 Natural Resources WaySpringfield, IL 62702

Illinois Department of Natural

Resources Ms. Tara Kieninger 1 Natural Resources WaySpringfield, IL 62702

Tribes

Bad River Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Ms. Edith Leoso, THPO

Mr. Robert Blanchard, Chair

PO Box 39

Odanah, WI 54861

Forest County Potawatomi Community

of Wisconsin

Ms. Melissa Cook, THPO

Mr. Harold Frank, Chair

Tribal Office

PO Box 340

Crandon, WI 54520

Ho‐Chunk Nation Mr. Bill Quackenbush

Mr. Wilfrid Cleveland, President

Executive Offices

405 Airport Road

Black River Falls, WI 54615

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa Indians of

Wisconsin

Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, THPO

Mr. James Williams, Jr., Chairman

Ketegitigaaning Ojibwe Nation

PO Box 249

Watersmeet, MI 49969

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Mr. Dave Grignon, THPO

Ms. Joan Delabreau, Chairperson

PO Box 910

Keshena, WI 54135

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Mr. Warren Wahweotten, Jr., THPO

Ms. Liana Onnen, Chairperson

16281 Q Road

Mayetta, KS 66509

Prairie Island Indian Community

Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux

Mr. Art Owen, THPO

Ms. Shelley Buck, Chair

5636 Sturgeon Lake Road

Welch, MN 55089

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Mr. Larry Balber, THPO

Mr. Bryan Bainbridge, Chair

88385 Pike Road, Highway 13

Bayfield, WI 54814

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma Ms. Sandra Massey, NAGPRA Rep.

Ms. Kay Rhoads, Principal Chief

920883 S. Highway 99

Stroud, OK 74079

Sac and Fox of the Mississippi in Iowa Mr. Johnathan Buffalo, NAGPRA Rep.

Mr. Troy Wanatee, Chair

349 Meskwaki Road

Tama, IA 52339

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in

Kansas and Nebraska

Mr. Gary Bahr

Mr. Edmore Green, Chairperson

305 North Main

Reserve, KS 66434

Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole

Lake Band Mr. Chris McGeshick, Chairman 3051 Sand Lake Road

Crandon, WI 54520

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Mr. George Strack

Mr. Douglas G. Lankford, Chair

202 S. Eight Tribes Trail

Miami, OK 74354

Hannahville Indian Community Mr. Kenneth Meshigaud, Chairperson N14911 Hannahville Boulevard Road

Wilson, MI 49896

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Mr. Marcus Winchester, THPO

Mr. John Warren, Chairman

58620 Sink Road

Dowagiac, MI 49047

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Dr. Kelli Mosteller, THPO

Mr. John A. Barrett

1601 S. Gordon Cooper Drive

Shawnee, OK 74801

County

Milwaukee County, WI Mr. Chris Abele 901 N. 9th Street, Room 306

Milwaukee, WI 53233

Racine County, WI Mr. James Ladwig 730 Wisconsin Avenue, 10th Floor

Racine, WI 53403

Kenosha County, WI Mr. Jim Kreuser 1010 56th Street

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐4
   

     

       

   

   

   

     

                   

     

                       

     

             

   

         

     

                   

     

                     

     

                     

     

                         

     

                     

       

                       

       

                   

     

                   

     

                     

     

       

     

     

     

     

     

                     

     

                     

       

                   

     

                         

     

             

     

             

     

                           

     

   

                     

     

     

                        

                           

                            

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Agency Stakeholders Contact Person Address

Kenosha, WI 53140

Lake County, IL Ms. Paula Trigg 600 W. Winchester Road

Libertyville, IL 60048

Cook County, IL Mr. John Yonan, P.E. 69 W. Washington, 23rd Floor

Chicago, IL 60602

Municipalities

City of Milwaukee, WI Mr. Jeff Polenske

Infrastructure Division

841 N. Broadway, Room 701

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Village of Sturtevant, WI Ms. Mary Cole 2801 89th Street

Sturtevant, WI 53177

Village of Wadsworth, IL Mr. Moses Amidei 14155 W. Wadsworth Road

Wadsworth, IL 60083

Village of Gurnee, IL Mr. Patrick Muetz 325 N. O’Plaine Road

Gurnee, IL 60031

Village of Waukegan, IL Mr. Scot Prindiville 100 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue

Waukegan, IL 60085

Village of Green Oaks, IL Ms. Elaine Palmer 2020 O’Plaine Road

Green Oaks, IL 60048

City of Lake Forest, IL Mr. Robert Kiley 220 E. Deerpath Road

Lake Forest, IL 60045

Village of Bannockburn, IL Ms. Maria Lasday 2275 Telegraph Road

Bannockburn, IL 60015

Village of Deerfield, IL Mr. Kent Street 850 Waukegan Road

Deerfield, IL 60015

Village of Northbrook, IL Mr. Richard A. Nahrstadt 1225 Cedar Lane

Northbrook, IL 60062

Village of Glenview, IL

Mr. Donald Owen

Mr. Jeff Brady

Mr. Todd Hileman

1225 Waukegan Road

Glenview, IL 60025

Village of Golf, IL Mr. Bob Der Avedisian 1 Briar Road

Golf, IL 60029

Village of Morton Grove, IL Mr. Ryan Horne 6101 Capulina Avenue

Morton Grove, IL 60053

Village of Skokie, IL Mr. John Lockerby 5127 Oakton Street

Skokie, IL 60077

Village of Niles, IL Mr. George R. Van Geem 000 Civic Center Drive

Niles, IL 60714

City of Chicago, IL Ms. Karen Weigert

Mr. Aaron Joseph

121 N. La Salle Street, Room 406

Chicago, IL 60603

City of Chicago, IL Mr. Jeffrey Sriver 30 N. La Salle Street, 5th Floor

Chicago, IL 60602

Other Agencies

General Mitchell International Airport Mr. John Moore 5300 South Howell Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53207

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional

Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Mr. Ken Yunker W239 N1812 Rockwood DriveWaukesha, WI 53187

An initial agency stakeholder webinar was conducted on November 19, 2012 to inform the stakeholders

about the project, request comments, and outline future public outreach activities. The initial purpose

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐5
   

     

       

   

   

               

                               

                        

                             

                        

                           

                              

                   

         

           

           

                   

     

         

             

           

             

                             

     

           

               

               

               

              

                                 

                       

                            

   

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

and need and alternatives analysis activities were discussed.

On December 2, 2014, a follow‐up agency stakeholder webinar was held to discuss refinement of the

alternatives analysis and identification of proposed improvement projects. Prior to the webinar, draft

concept plans and project descriptions for the proposed improvement projects were provided to each of

the invited stakeholders, including Native American Tribes. Comments, anticipated impacts, and potential

mitigation were requested to be provided to the project team by December 31, 2014.

Four agencies provided comments on the proposed project based on materials sent for the webinar.

Figure 4‐3 summarizes the correspondence received by the project team.

Figure 4‐3

Agency Stakeholder Correspondence

Agency Date Coordination

Wisconsin Department of Transportation –

Bureau of Aeronautics November 13, 2014

Reviewed the concept plans and proposed

scope of work and has no issues from a Bureau

of Aeronautics standpoint

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade,

and Consumer Protection (DATCP) December 9, 2014

Provided letter stating that an Agricultural

Impact Statement is not required for the

project.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) December 23, 2014 Provided a letter of Initial Review thatidentified project concerns

U.S. Coast Guard December 23, 2014

Provided email stating that the scope of work

for the work to the Menomonee River Bridge,

which is within the jurisdiction of the Coast

Guard, does not require a bridge permit

WDNR identified an initial list of concerns after reviewing the proposed scope and concept plans for the

infrastructure improvements associated with the increase in Hiawatha Service frequencies to 10 round

trips per day. Figure 4‐4 lists the comments, with responses by the project team.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐6
   

     

       

   

   

           

   

                   

               

           

                 

                 

               

           

                   

                 

               

                 

           

               

             

               

     

                     

              

              

                       

             

           

             

                 

             

                   

                   

               

                 

                     

                       

           

           

   

         

           

           

                     

           

            

               

           

                 

                    

                   

                     

                        

                  

               

                       

             

               

               

        

             

                 

                 

               

         

   

               

             

             

                  

                 

     

     

               

            

               

               

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Figure 4‐4

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Initial Project Review

WDNR Comment Response

Potential for wetland impacts to occur as a result of

this project and wetland impacts must be avoided

and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible

Wetlands were delineated as part of the Natural Resources

Review and impacts to wetlands quantified. State and Federal

permits and approvals must be attained prior to construction.

No Endangered Resources or suitable habitat that

could be impacted by this project are known or likely

to occur in the project area or its vicinity.

Federal requirements for screening for the presence of or

suitable habitat for the Northern Long‐Eared Bat in the

project areas have been followed.

In‐stream work at the Menomonee River Bridge that

could adversely impact water quality should be

undertaken between June 15th and February 28th of

the calendar year

No work is anticipated to occur on the structure of the

Menomonee River Bridge. Rail resurfacing and tie

replacement are above‐ballast activities that are proposed.

If any dredging of the banks is to occur, work should be

undertaken between June 15 and February 28.

Structures are potential migratory bird nesting No destruction of nests is anticipated to occur on the

places. Project should utilize measures to prevent structure of the Menomonee River Bridge because all

nesting or work should only occur between August 30 proposed work would be above‐ballast; however, if nets are

and May 1 (non‐nesting season). Must coordinate used to prevent birds from nesting on the Bridge, the nets

with US Fish & Wildlife Service if using either method must be put up prior to May 1 (when nesting season starts).

Adequate precautions should be taken to prevent

transporting or introducing invasive species via

construction equipment

During construction, proper protocols to prevent

transporting and introducing invasive species via

construction equipment and the disinfection of construction

equipment would be followed as defined by the NR 40, Wis.

Administrative Code and the STSP 107‐055 Environmental

Protection – Aquatic Exotic Species Control.

A determination must be made as to whether the

project lies within a mapped/zoned floodplain

FEMA flood hazard maps were reviewed for the project

areas. Within the Muskego Yard project area, the 1% flood

event is confined to the Menomonee River channel – work

on the bridge would not affect the hydrologic storage of the

land adjacent to the river. West of 27th Street, the 1% flood

event inundates the railway. During final design, a 100‐year

flood analysis must be undertaken to determine whether

the work would create an increase of 0.01 feet or more in

the 100‐year condition. FEMA regulations apply.

Potential for spreading the Emerald Ash Borer beetle

Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties are identified as

Emerald Ash Borer quarantined areas. During construction,

WI Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer

Protection provisions would be followed for the removal of

ash material, the emerald ash borer, and hardwood debris

out of the project areas to non‐quarantined locations.

Must address erosion control/stormwater methods

in construction plans

During final design and construction, an Erosion Control

Implementation Plan would be prepared that discusses

construction methods for protecting bank areas within

project areas. No structures would be removed as part of

the project; coordination with the DNR on bridge demolition

is not necessary.

Address asbestos during construction

WDNR must be notified during construction if asbestos

contained material is found during inspection. The

contractor would follow the DNRs regulations on asbestos

abatement for removal and disposal of asbestos contained

material.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment 4‐7

Quandel Consultants, LLC
   

     

       

   

   

                                     

                          

                                    

                              

                                 

                     

                                     

                              

                               

                                    

                                  

               

                               

                                

                                     

                           

                                    

                               

                  

                             

                                   

                                   

                 

	 	

                           

                              

                             

                                

                                 

                           

                                

                                 

                

                               

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

A follow‐up call was held January 12, 2016 with WDNR to discussthe concerns outlined in the initial review

letter and the responses outlined in Figure 4‐4. Coordination and commitments summarized in Figure 4‐

4 are included in the Environmental Resource chapter of this EA. WDNR provided a letter on January 12,

2016 stating that the comments and concerns identified in the initial review have been addressed. WDNR

has no further comments on the content of the Environmental Assessment at this time, but will circulate

the EA for staff review during the public comment period.

A follow‐up call was held on June 10, 2016 with DATCP to discuss updates to the concept plans that

resulted in the identification of land acquisition within an area determined to be prime farmland. DATCP

was consulted on potential impacts to the 0.07 acre property adjacent to the Milwaukee Airport Rail

Station Second Track project. Because the land that is proposed to be acquired is not currently farmed, it

does not fall under DATCP’s jurisdiction. The project does not need to further coordinate with DATCP and

an Agriculture Impact Statement is not needed.

On June 10, 2016, the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) and NRCS were consulted for potential

impactsto the 0.78‐acre property adjacent to the Metra Fox Lake Second Track project. IDOA determined

that the project would be exempt from further review because it requires less than 3 acres per mile of

land acquisition for the entire project in accordance with the IDOT‐IDOA Cooperative Working Agreement

on the protection of Illinois farmland. Because of the parcel’s size (0.78 ag acres) and its location adjacent

to the railroad’s existing ROW, IDOA and NRCS determined the project complies with the IL Farmland

Preservation Act and the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act.

On June 22, 2016, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program provided email confirmation that it does

not have any comments on the proposed project and will not conduct a federal consistency review for the

project.

On October 3, 2016, the Illinois OWR provided confirmation over the phone that it will not conduct a

federal consistency review for Coastal Management on the project.

4.5 Local Agency Coordination

Local agency participation has been encouraged throughout the EA process, starting with the agency

stakeholder meeting held on November 19, 2012. Attendees were invited to comment on the proposed

purpose and need and alternatives analysis during the meeting and the contact information for various

members of the project team was provided at the conclusion of the meeting for further correspondence.

It was originally anticipated that the EA would be released within 6 months of the agency stakeholder

meeting, but due to unexpected, significant delays in the railroad coordination process, the project

schedule was extended. As described in Section 4.4, a second agency stakeholder meeting was held on

December 2, 2014 to update the stakeholders on all project elements. As during the first agency

stakeholder meeting, the project team requested comments.

All local agencies had equal opportunity to participate in meetings and provide comments, and only one

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐8
   

     

       

   

   

                            

                               

                             

                                  

                                  

                                    

                               

                                  

                                  

                           

         

                                   

                                 

                       

                                  

                               

                                

                               

                          

                               

                             

                           

                                 

                         

                               

                               

                                

                       

                              

                                 

                           

      

	 	

                                   

                               

                             

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

local agency requested additional coordination. The Village of Glenview requested a meeting with FRA,

WisDOT, and IDOT on January 6, 2015 to express concern over the proposed increase in frequencies

traveling through their community, the proposed crossover in Glenview, and the UP Siding Extension at

A‐20 project. The Village submitted a list of comments on February 16, 2015 and March 11, 2015, to

which the project team responded. An additional meeting was held on March 19, 2015 to further discuss

the A‐20 project, listen to the Village’s concerns, and discuss the need for the UP Siding Extension project.

The project team discussed in detail the constraints of the existing rail network, the operational benefits

of the proposed project, and the lack of alternatives that would produce similar benefits. The team also

stressed that the proposed project would not increase freight traffic on the route. After the March 19,

2015 meeting, the Deputy Village Manager of Glenview provided the following summary of Glenview’s

position on the A‐20 project:

On July 4, 2012, 32 fully loaded Union Pacific freight cars carrying coal derailed from the Union Pacific

track just south of Shermer Road/Willow Road intersection causing loss of life and a 2‐year closure of

Shermer Road while a new, safer, state‐of‐the‐art bridge was designed, manufactured and

installed. In addition to the immeasurable pain that the families of the individuals who were killed had

to endure, the residents and businesses of Glenview and Northbrook suffered greatly and it will take

many years to recover from the tragedy. To our communities, it is unthinkable that IDOT, WisDOT,

and the FRA would consider another project in this same location that will have another enormous

negative impact on the residents and businesses. Glenview and Northbrook most stridently request

that all efforts, including financial commitments, be made by IDOT, WisDOT, and the FRA to identify

an alternate solution to A‐20 as this is not feasible by any measure for our communities.

Village representatives requested that the project team perform an alternatives analysis on the UP Siding

Extension at A‐20 project to identify an alternate solution. The project team agreed. A team comprised

of FRA, WisDOT and IDOT environmental leads produced an alternatives analysis methodology and

identified a range of reasonable alternatives to the A‐20 project. The five alternatives, including the

original, were selected for their ability to provide the same operational benefit to freight and passenger

rail service that the original A‐20 design did. The alternatives were evaluated using the following criteria:

safety, order of magnitude capital costs, environmental impacts, feasibility, railroad operations, and

meeting the overarching project purpose and need. Alternatives that did not meet the evaluation criteria

were removed from consideration. The remaining alternatives were evaluated in the EA. Two of the five

alternatives sufficiently met the evaluation criteria and were further evaluated in Chapter 3 –

Environmental Resources Analysis.

4.6 Other Project Coordination

Since the inception of the project in 2012, WisDOT hassupported and participated in a number of activities

to promote, seek input on, and provide general awareness of the project. These activities include

presentations at various conferences, a television panel session, a public hearing for the Wisconsin State

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐9
   

     

       

   

   

                            

                   

   

       

                 

   

                 

   

                 

   

                 

   

     

     

                   

   

                   

   

                 

   

                 

   

                   

   

       

       

                 

   

       

                   

       

                 

       

         

         

     

   

   

                       

     

       

                    

       

   

                        

   

   

   

                 

   

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Rail Plan, and presentations to agency/stakeholder groups at their request. Figure 4‐5 summarizes the

activities that occurred and the date and location of each activity.

Figure 4‐5

WisDOT Project Coordination Activities

Activity Date Location Purpose

Wisconsin DOT Freight Rail

Conference

November 14, 2012 Madison, WI Provided project update to

conference attendees

November 13, 2013 Madison, WI Provided project update to

conference attendees

November 12, 2014 Madison, WI Provided project update to

conference attendees

November 17, 2015 Madison, WI Provided project update to

conference attendees

Wisconsin Association of

Rail Passengers Meetings

October 26, 2013 La Crosse, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

March 29, 2014 Wisconsin Dells, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

October 25, 2014 Milwaukee, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

March 29, 2015 Madison, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

October 24, 2015 Wisconsin Dells, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

All Aboard Wisconsin and

Wisconsin Urban and Rural

Transit Association’s

Minnesota/Wisconsin

Public Transportation

Conference

October 20, 2015 Duluth, MN Provided project update to

meeting attendees

Television panel session on

“Wisconsin Eye” January 23, 2014

http://www.wiseye.org/Video‐

Archive/Event‐

Detail/evhdid/8369

Described purpose of rail study

Wisconsin Rail Plan 2030

Public Hearing and Open

House

December 10, 2013 Madison, WI

Hiawatha Service expansion is

included in the Wisconsin Rail

Plan 2030 short term projects;

provided project update

American Planning

Association’s Upper

Midwest Planning

Conference

September 25, 2012 Madison, WI

Made presentation: Intercity

Passenger Rail Projects, Plans &

Prospects in the Midwest

Meeting with Racine Area

Business group

June 14, 2013 Racine, WI Discussed potential Hiawatha

Service expansion

Meeting with City of

Milwaukee public

transportation review

board

October 11, 2013 Milwaukee, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

Milwaukee Mitchell

International Airport

stakeholder meeting

February 4, 2016 Milwaukee, WI Provided project update to

meeting attendees

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐10
   

     

       

   

   

		

                                 

                      

                             

                         

                             

                             

                                 

                       

                               

                             

                             

                                    

                           

               

	 	 	 	 	

                       

                                

             

                       

                          

                   

                             

     

                       

                 

                               

                               

       

                             

                     

                                                            

               

                 

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

4.7 Public Involvement

Public Involvement is an important part of the NEPA process that FRA encourages at each stage of the

process. FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts98 state that “evidence of consultation

with appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities is especially desirable as a part of the environmental

assessment.” The procedures do not further specify public involvement requirements. FRA issued

additional guidance when the High‐Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program was created as part of

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 to strategically invest in passenger rail

corridors. FRA identified its approach for melding the NEPA process with the HSIPR program in its

Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the High‐Speed Intercity

Passenger Rail Program Guidance in 2009. According to FRA’s HSIPR NEPA guidance, “while public and

agency involvement is often more structured in connection with preparing an EIS because of its specific

requirements for a scoping process, formal circulation of draft and final documents, and possible public

hearing or meeting, it is equally important in connection with preparation of an EA.”99 For an EA, FRA

requires evidence of consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local authorities, as well as

opportunities for the public to be involved.

4.7.1 State Requirements for Public Involvement Meetings

Public involvement procedures will draw upon state requirements for number of meetings, notification

of meetings, and the type of materials provided at the meetings. The following sections describe the

Wisconsin and Illinois public involvement requirements and guidelines.

4.7.1.1 Wisconsin 

WisDOT’s Facilities Development Manual – Chapter 6, Public Involvement, provides information on the

state requirements of public meetings held in Wisconsin. The following requirements and guidelines were

used to develop the public involvement process for the project:

 28 CFR 36 – Americans with Disabilities Act requires government programs to be accessible to

people with disabilities.

 Wisconsin Statute 985, Publication of Legal Notices; Public Newspapers; Fees defines legal notice

class‐types, publishing requirements, and identifies the official state newspaper.

	 Public meetings should be announced two to three weeks in advance of the meeting and citizens

and groups should be informed of the public meeting’s purpose, date, and time with a meeting

notice published in local newspapers.

	 For projects that may involve the acquisition of right‐of‐way interest, a notice of the meeting

should be mailed to all property owners adjacent to the project.

98 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02561 99https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0262, Compliance With The National Environmental Policy Act In Implementing

The High‐Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, August 13, 2009

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐11
   

     

       

   

   

                       

         

                           

                          

                         

                                   

                       

                                 

                                     

                           

                                     

                       

                         

                           

                     

                     

                     

                                 

                                    

                                

                             

	 	 	 	 	

                                       

                                    

                               

                                    

         

                 

             

               

                       

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

	 Use standardized public involvement forms and templates provided on the WisDOT website when

preparing materials for public meetings

4.7.1.2 Illinois 

IDOT’s Bureau of Design and Environment (BDE) Manual – Chapter 19, Public Involvement Guidelines

provides information on the requirements of public meetings held in Illinois. The following requirements

and guidelines were used to develop the public involvement process for the project:

 IDOT will hold at a minimum one public information meeting at the time of completion of an EA

to inform the public of a project’s environmental documentation and other applicable updates.

 The Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et. seq.) provides that a “meeting” of a “public body,” must

be open to the public and held at times and locations that are convenient and open to the public.

	 Illinois Executive Order (EO) #5 (1979) requires that all meetings or conferences conducted by

IDOT be held in a public or private place which is accessible to persons with a disability. The event

location must be consistent with the Accessibility Standards prepared by the Capital Development

Board (CDB), unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise. Notices of these events must advise

persons with a disability to promptly inform those responsible for conducting the meeting or

conference of their anticipated attendance. Upon notification, event organizers should provide

qualified interpreter services for the hearing‐impaired and should make essential materials

available in a form usable by the visually impaired, as needed.

	 Each public involvement activity conducted by IDOT is subject to a minimum of two notices to the

public. The first notice of a public involvement meeting for an EA will be published at least 15

days in advance. The second notice will be published three to seven days before the meeting.

	 Notifications should be advertised via the news media, posters, mailing lists, or other media, as

needed.

4.7.2 Informing and Notifying the Public

4.7.2.1 Notice of Public Comment Period and Availability of the EA 

A notice of the start of the public comment period and availability of the EA will be published in local

newspapers and on the project website. The notice will identify where the EA will be available for public

review, how the public can provide input, and who to contact with comments or for additional

information. The EA will be available in electronic format on the project website and hard copies will be

available at the following locations:

	 Wisconsin Department of Transportation Library, Office of Policy, Finance and Improvement,

4802 Sheboygan Ave., Room 100A, Madison, WI
 

 Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI
 

 Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, 1 East Main Street, Suite 200, Madison, WI
 

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐12
   

     

       

   

   

                   

                 

               

               

                   

               

           

 

                             

                                  

                                   

                               

                                    

     

                             

                           

                       

                       

   

           

         

       

   

                                     

                     

                                     

                               

                                 

                                 

                            

                           

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

 Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive, Waukesha,

WI

 Milwaukee Public Library, 814 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI

 Racine Public Library, 75 Seventh Street, Racine, WI

 Kenosha Public Library, 821 56th Street, Kenosha, WI

 Harold Washington Library Center, 400 S. State Street, Chicago, IL

 Glenview Public Library, 1930 Glenview Road, Glenview, IL

 IDOT, 69 W. Washington, Chicago, IL

4.7.2.2 Public Meetings for the Environmental Assessment 

Once FRA approves the EA document for public and agency review, the draft Environmental Assessment

will be circulated to the public for a minimum 30‐day comment period (see previous section). To provide

opportunitiesfor the public to participate in the project, three public meetings will be held after the public

comment period has begun. A public hearing will be held in Wisconsin and two public involvement

meetings will be held in Illinois. Dates and locations for the public involvement meetings on the Draft EA

are as follows:

 October 27, 2016, 4‐7 p.m., Washington Park Senior Center, 4420 W. Vliet Street, Milwaukee, WI

 November 1, 2016, 4‐7 p.m., Chicago Union Station, 500 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

 November 2, 2016, 5‐8 p.m., Park Center, 2400 Chestnut Street, Glenview, IL

The content of the meetings will focus on the following project elements:

 NEPA process

 Purpose and need of the project

 Definition of alternatives and analysis

 Summary of environmental evaluation

 Next steps

The purpose of the meetings is to provide project information to the public and to solicit public input on

project alternatives and on the environmental resources potentially impacted by the alternatives.

The meetings will be held on weekdays during the early evening to encourage people to stop by on their

way home from work. Meeting locations will be ADA–accessible, and have strong access to public

transportation and adequate parking in the vicinity of the meeting location. The meetings will be held in

an open house format and will include an informal project presentation, a series of display boards with

project team members present to answer questions, and the ability to provide public comments. After

the public meetings have occurred, the materials will be posted to the project website.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐13
   

     

       

   

   

                                   

                               

                               

  

                               

                         

                                

     

                           

                               

                                 

                            

                               

                               

                         

   

                             

                       

                         

                             

   

	 	 	 		

                            

                             

               

     

                               

                               

                              

   

Chapter 4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

4.7.2.3 Project Website 

A project website was developed by WisDOT in 2012 to provide information on the purpose of the project,

outline the documents that would be published as part of the project, disseminate information related to

planned meetings, and allow interested parties to contact the project leads. The website address is:

http://chi‐milwrailstudy.wi.gov.

The website will provide announcements on the notice of public comment period and availability of the

environmental assessment and the dates/times/locations of the public meetings. After the public

meetings, documentsfrom the meetings will be uploaded to the website. Comments will also be accepted

through the website.

4.7.2.4 Outreach to Environmental Justice Groups 

Targeted outreach efforts will be made to minority and low‐income population organizations along the

project corridor as part of the Chicago‐Milwaukee EA. A notice of the public comment period and

availability of the EA and notification of public involvement meetings will be sent to contacts for minority

and low‐income population organizations and community groups along the corridor. As part of public

involvement, interpreters will be provided at public meetings by request and public materials can be made

available in Spanish. As discussed under Section 4.7.2.2, public meetings will be held in public

transportation‐friendly and ADA‐accessible locations and a hotline will be provided to receive public

comments.

Environmental Justice resources in Wisconsin were provided by SEWRPC, who maintains a list of contacts

for minority and low‐income population organizations through their Public Involvement and Outreach

Division and/or Environmental Justice Task Force. Similar organizations were identified in Illinois. A

complete listing of the minority and low‐income population organizations in the corridor is included in

Appendix J.

4.7.3 Opportunity for Public Comment

Comments and suggestions will be solicited from interested partiesthroughout the process. The following

methods will be used to collect comments from the general public throughout the NEPA process:

 Mail‐in Comment Forms distributed at the Public Meetings

 Telephone: (608) 261‐6123

 E‐mail: DOTChicagoMilwaukeePassengerRailEA@dot.wi.gov

 Project website which includes both the telephone number and a direct link to the email address

Comment forms will be provided at the public meeting to encourage public input and to gather

feedback. Comments from the meetings will be considered for inclusion in the FRA decision document

as appropriate.

Chicago‐Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor October 2016

Draft Environmental Assessment

Quandel Consultants, LLC

4‐14